I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 1 6 7 1 - S CT
NI NA PRICE, I

ND I VI DU ALLY AN

D O N B EH

ALF OF AL L W RONGFUL DE

AT H BE NE FICI AR I ESOF ALB ERT

B. PRICE, J

R. , DECEAS

ED v. S T EV EN CLAR K, M

. D. , S AMUEL DUF

F A US T I N, M .D ., B EN

N IE BA R N

E T T E W R IGH T , J R ., M .D ., ES T A T E O F BA R R Y S T EP H EN S U L L IV A N , M .D ., CLEVE LAN

D M EDI CAL ALLI

AN CE, LLP, CLE VEL A ND MEDI C A L CL IN I C , PL LC, CL EV ELAN D MEDICA L C

L I NIC, L T

D AND CLE VEL AND CLI

NIC, P. A.
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 17/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. CH AR LES E
. W EBSTER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: BOLI VAR COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : CH RI S T OP HE R MORGA N P OS E Y E DW AR D A. W I L L I AM S ON J OHN NI E E
. W ALL S , J R. AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : J AM E S L AW RE NC E W I L S ON, I V T O MMI E G
. WI L L I A MS NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - M EDI CAL M ALP RACTI CE DI S P OSI TI ON: ON D I REC T AP P EAL : AFF I RM ED I N PART A N D R E V E R S E D A N D R E M A N D E D IN P AR T
. ON C RO S S
- AP P E AL : AF F I RMED - 07/ 23/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:

### It

was late r de te rm ine d that Provide nceHea lt hcarewas impro perly i dentif ie d, and 1 

### that t he proper nameof the cor

porateenti ty that owned Boli var Medic alCente r was PHCClev eland , Inc. 2 ¶ 1
. T h is a p p e a l in v o lv e s v a rio u s is su e s a risin g fro m m e d ica l-n e g lig e n c e /w ro n g fu l-d e a th l i t i gat i on agai ns tvar i ous m edi cal pr ovi der s underbot h t he M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ctand the m edi cal
- m al pr act i ce s t atut e. W e af f i r m i n par tand re ver s e i n partthe f i nal j udgm entof di s m i s s al ent er ed by the C i r cui tC our tf orthe Second J udi ci al D i s tr i ctof B ol i varC ount y, J udge C har l es E
. W ebs t erpr es i di ng.

F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. A l bertPr i ce, J r . , N i na Pr i ce’ s ( “Pr i ce” ) hus band, w a s di a gn os ed w i th a pi tui t ary tum or on A pr i l 9, 2004, j us tf

ourm onths pr i ort o hi s death on A ugus t14, 2004. U pon the dea th of herhus band, N i na Pr i ce c om m ence d thi s l i t i gat i on vi a a dul y- f i l ed compl ai ntal l egi ng t hat herhus band’ s pr i m ary- car e phys i ci an, D r . St even Cl ark, had pr oxi m at el y caus ed her hus band’ s i nj ur i es and w r ongf ul death due t o hi s negl i gentf ai l ure t o t i m el y di agnos e the p itu itary tu m o r. P u rsu a n t to a th e o ry o f re sp o n d e a t su p e rio r, P ric e a lso n a m e d a s d e fe n d a n ts i n h e ro r i g i n a l c o mp l a i n tDr
. Cl a r k ’ s e mp l o y e r s : Cl e v e l a n d M e d i c a l Cl i n i c , P LL C; C l evel and M edi cal A l l i ance , L L P ( “A l l i ance” ) ; and Pr ovi dence H eal thcar e d/b/ a B ol i var M ed ical C en ter (“B o li v ar M ed ical C en ter”). P ri ce furthe r alle g e d that h er h u sb an d ’s 1
n e u ro lo g ist, D r. R a v i P a n d e , o f G re e n w o o d N e u ro lo g y C lin ic, w a s n e g lig e n t in fa ili n g to di agnos e the tum or, w hi ch pr oxi m at el y caus ed i nj ur i es t o M r . and M r s . Pr i ce a nd t he
w r ongf ul death of

M r . Pr i ce.

### 3

¶3. M r . Pr i ce had var i ous heal th pr obl ems, r ece i vi ng pr i m ary car e fr om 19 80 unt i l t he tim e o f h is d e a th in 2 0 0 4 a t w h a t h e b e liev e d to b e th e sa m e m e d ica l clin ic. H o w e v e r, th is cl i ni c actual l y w as a ser i es of s ucce s s i ve par tner s hi ps housed i n the s ame f aci l i ty. A l l i ance
w as a l i m i t ed- l i abi l i ty partner s hi p f or m ed on M ay 30, 1997, by the B oard of T rus t ees f

or G re e n w o o d L e fl o re H o s p ita l a n d p h y s ic ia n s C h a rl e s F . B ro c k , M .D .; B e n n y B . W ri g h t, J r., M
. D
. ; Sam uel D
. A us t i n, M
. D
. ; and B arry S
. S ul l i van, M
. D
. D r . C l ark w as an empl oyee of A l l i ance f

r om D ece m ber20, 1999, thr ough Sept ember30, 2003. H ow ever , Pr i ce mai nt ai ns thatatthe t i m e s he f

i l ed the s ui t , s he w as unaw ar e of any af f i l i at i on betw een A l l i ance and G re e n w o o d L e flo re H o sp ital. C lev e lan d M e d ica l C lin ic, P L L C , w a s th e s u c c e ss o r c lin ic
or gani zed a nd oper at ed betw een O ct ober1, 2003, and J anuary 31, 2004, by phys i ci ans C har l es F
. B r ock, J r . , M
. D
. ; J ames E. W arr i ngt on, J r . , M
. D
. ; B enny B
. W r i ght , J r . , M
. D
. ; and St even C l ark, M
. D
. A f

t erFebruary 1, 2004, C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c bec ame an af f i l i at ed ent i ty of D el t a R egi onal M edi cal C ent er . B ol i varM edi cal C ent er , form er l y know n as B ol i var C ounty H os pi t al , w as the l ocal hos pi t al w her e M r . Pr i ce r ece i ved medi cal car e. ¶4. T he f

ol l ow i ng i s a pr ocedur al t i m el i ne of thi s cas e: A ugus t30, 2004 Pr i ce m ai l ed not i ce- of
- cl ai m l ett er s , as r equi r ed by M i ssi ssi ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) , t o the f ol l ow i ng defendant s : D r . St even Cl ark, i ndi vi dual l y; D r . C l ark on behal f of A l l i ance ; N at i onal R egi s t er ed A gent s on behal f

of B ol i varM edi cal ; G er al d J acks , a r egi s t er ed age nt of C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c.Pr i ce a ctual l y f i l ed tw o compl ai nt s on A ugus t31, 2004. T he s econd c om pl ai ntw as 2 f i l ed i n the s ame caus e numberand adde d one addi t i onal def endant , D r . R avi Pande. T he re c o rd re v e a ls th a t th e se c o n d co m p lain t w a s in ten d e d as a s u b stitu te f o r th e first c o m p lain t. B oth compl ai nt s w i l l be r ef err ed t o col l ect i vel y as the “or i gi nal compl ai nt . ”



### 4 A ugus t 31, 2004 Pr i ce f i l ed a com plai nt againstD r. S t even C l ark, A l l i ance , B ol i var 2 M edi cal , C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, D r . Ravi Pande , a nd J ohn D oes 1- 5 . T h e b a sis o f th e co m p lain t w a s n e g lig e n c e a n d g ro ss n e g lig e n c e in f ai l i ng t o tr eata nd di agnos e the pi tui t ary tum or . Thats ame day, Pr i ce m a ile d D r. P a n d e a n o tic e -o f- c la im le tte r. D ece m ber7, 2004 T he def end ant s w er e per s onal l y s erved w i th pr oces s . D r . C l ark w as s erved i ndi vi dual l y and on beha l f of A l l i ance , b ecaus e Pr i ce m i s t a ke nl y b e l i e ve d h i m t o b e a f ormerpa r tne rof

the no w - di s s ol ved l i m i t ed- l i abi l i ty partner s hi p. J anuary 4, 2005 D r . Pande f i l ed a M ot i on t o D i s m i s s f or Fai l ur e t o St at e a C l ai m U pon W hi ch R el i ef

C an B e G r ant ed bas ed on D r . Pande’ s al l eged pr ot ect ed s t atus underthe M T C A as a em ployee of G r eenw ood N eur ol ogy C lin ic, w h ich w a s o w n e d an d o p e ra ted b y a p u b lic h o sp ital, G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al
. D r . Pande l at erw as di s m i s s ed f r om the su itb y A g ree d O rde r of D ism issal W ith o u t Pre jud ice fil ed o n F eb rua ry 2, 2006. February 3, 2005 P ric e se n t no tice -o f-c laim letter s to a d d iti o n a l d e fe n d a n ts p u rsu a n t to

the M T C A
. Pr i ce s entt hes e l ett er s t o D el t a R egi onal M edi cal C ent er ( L
. R ay H um phr eys , C E O ) due t o i t s af f i l i at i on w i th C l evel and M edical C l i nic and t o G reenw oo d L efl ore H ospit al ( Jerry A dam s, E xecut i ve D i r ect or ) due t o i t s af f i l i at i on w i th A l l i ance and G r eenw ood N eur ol ogy C l i ni c.

### 5

J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 W i t hout l eave f r om t he t r i al cou rt , Pr i ce f i l ed an “A m ended C o m p lain t” a d d in g d e fe n d a n ts G re e n w o o d L e flo re H o sp ital a n d D e lta R egi onal M edi cal C ent er . T he amended compl ai ntr et ai ned al l t he p re v io u sly n a m e d d e fe n d a n ts, b u t re n a m e d C lev e lan d M e d ica l C lin ic as “C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, PL L C
. ” The under l yi ng bas i s of the co m p lai n t r em aine d the s am e – n e g li g en ce an d g ross n eg li g en ce . D r. C l ark, A l l i ance , a nd Cl evel and M edi cal Cl i ni c, PL L C , w er e nots erved w i t h a copy of

the amended compl ai nt . G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al eventual l y w as di s m i s s ed by A gr eed O r derof D i s m i s s al W i t hout Pr ej udi ce f

i l ed on February 2, 2006. D el t a R egi onal w as di s m i s s ed f r om the s ui tby A gr eed O r derof D i smi s s al ent er ed on M ar ch 13, 2006. N ovember2, 2005 Pr i ce f i l ed a “Second A m ended Com pl ai nt ” thatr et ai ned the p re v io u sly n a m e d d e fe n d a n ts a n d u n d e rly in g b a sis fo r th e c o m p lain t, b u ta d d e d P HC- Cl e v e l a n d , I n c . d /b / a Bo l i v a rM e d i c a l Ce n t e r . P HCC l evel and, I nc. d/b/ a B oli var M edical C enterw as i nco rr ect l y i dent i f i ed i n the or i gi nal compl ai ntas “Pr ovi nce H eal thcar e C om pany. ”A l s o on thi s day, s um m ons es w er e is sued f ors ervi ce on D el t a R egi onal M edi cal C ent er , G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al , and PH C
- C l evel and, I nc. , by w ay of

C T C orpor at i on Ser vi ce i n L akel and, Fl or i da. D ece m ber27, 2005 D ef

endant s , D r . St even C l ark, Cl evel and M edi cal Cl i ni c, and A l l i ance f i l ed thei rA ns w er s , Fi rs tD ef ens es , and M ot i ons t o D i s m i s s , r ai s i ng th e d e fe n se s o f fa ilu re to tim e ly file n o tic e o f c laim p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 6 ; th e fa ilu re o f p lain tiff to a ttac h to the sec o n d a m en d ed c o m p lai n t a c erti fi ca te e x ec u ted b y the p lai n ti ff’ s att o rne y a s re q u ir ed b y M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 1 -1-5 8 ; th e fa il u re to p ro v id e p ro p e r n o tice o f c laim u n d e r th e M T C A ; as w e ll as a ll a p p lic a b le R u le 1 2 d e fe n se s u n d e r th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il P roc edur e and otherr el evantdef ens es . Fol l ow i ng a r es pons e f r om P ri ce, the d efendan t s f

i l ed a R ebu tt al i n S up po rtof M oti on s t o D i sm i ss a n d N o tice o f C o n v e rsio n to M o tio n fo r S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t. February 21, 2006 A n A gr eed O r derof D i s m i s s al w as ent er ed f orPH C
- C l evel and, I nc. ( i ncorr ect l y named i n the C om pl ai ntas Pr ovi nce H eal thcar e C om pany d /b/a B o li v ar M ed ical C en ter). A pri l 20 , 20 06 P ri ce i ssued new noti ce-of -cl aim let ters t o D rs. S teve n C lark, B arry Sul l i va n, Sa muel D
. A us t i n, Benn i e B. W r i gh t , J r . , and Cha r l e s F. B ro c k a n d C lev e lan d M e d ica l C lin ic c /o D rs. B ro c k , A u stin , W rig h t, and Sul l i van.

### 6

A p ril 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 P ric e fil e d a M o tio n fo r V o lu n tar y D ism iss a l W ith o u t P re ju d ice a s to def endant s D r . St even Cl ark, A l l i ance , and C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c. O n M a y 8, 2 00 6, Pr i c e f i l e d a M ot i on t o Sub s t i tut e Pa r t i e s by Fi l i ng A m ended Com pl ai ntt o enabl e hert o s ubs t i tut e named def endant s f or J ohn D oes 1- 5 i n the or i gi nal compl ai nt . B y t he end of M ay, a hea r i ng w a s s e t fo r Ju n e 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 , b e fo re C ir c u it Ju d g e C h a rle s W e b ste r in C lar k sd a le, C o a h o m a C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. J ul y 24, 2006 Pr i ce’ s m ot i on t o amend compl ai nt w as grant ed. A n O rderG r ant i ng

Par t i al Sum m ary J udgm entw as ent er ed by the t r i al j udge and f i l ed on J ul y 24, 2006, di s m i s s i ng, w i th pr ej udi ce, al l def endant s s ubj ectt o t he M T CA
. J ul y 26 , 20 06 P ri ce fi l ed a thi rd am end ed co m plai nt i den t i fyi ng t he fol l ow i ng

d e fe n d a n ts: S tev e n C lar k , M .D .; S a m u e l D u ff A u stin , M .D .; B e n n ie Ba r n e t t e W r i g h t , J r . , M. D. ; th e E s t a t e o f B a rry S t e p h e n S u l l i v a n , M
. D. ( “D r . Su l l i van”) ; C l evel and C l i ni c, PA ; C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, L t d. ; A l l i ance ; and C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, PL L C
. Pr i ce s ubs t i tut ed the new l y named def

endant s f

orJ ohn D oes 1- 5 f

r om the or i gi nal c o m p lain t. T h e c o m p lain t alle g e d n e g lig e n c e a n d g ro ss n e g lig e n c e in the fa il u re to treat a n d /or p rop erly d iagn o se M r. P ri ce ’s pituit ary tu m o r. D r. S u lli v a n tre a ted M r. P ric e fro m 1 9 9 4 u n til 2 0 0 0 . D r. A u stin tr eat ed M r . Pr i ce i n 1990. D r . W r i ghttr eat ed M r . Pr i ce f r om 2000 u n ti l 20 0 2
. D r. C lark treated M r. P ri ce from 2 0 0 0 u n ti l M r. P ri ce ’s death i n J une 2004. A ugus t28, 2006 T r i al courtent er ed an or derdenyi ng def endant s ’ M ot i on t o A m end J u d g m e n t. Sept ember5, 2006 D efendan t s f i l ed A nsw ers and F i rs tD efenses and M oti on s t o D i sm i ss. M a r c h 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 T r i al c ou r t e nt e r e d a n A mend e d O r de r t hat di s m i s s ed t he f i ve def endant s s ubs t i tut ed i n the Thi r d A m ended Com pl ai ntf orJ ohn D oes 1- 5: D r s . Sam uel A us t i n, B enni e B
. W r i ght , J r . and B arry St ephen Sul l i van; and C l evel and C l i ni c, P. A
. , C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, L t d. T h e tri al co u rtclarif

ied th at th e ti m e p eriod d u ri n g w h ich D r. C lark a n d Cl e v e l a n d M e d i c a l Cl i n i c , P LL C, we r e n o ts u b j e c tt o M TCA i m m un i ty w as f

rom O ct ob er 1, 20 03 , t o Janu ary 31, 2004
. T hu s, acc or di ng t o t he t r i al court , Pr i ce c oul d m ai nt ai n a cl ai m f orconduct thatoccurr ed onl y dur i ng thi s t i m e per i od.

### 7

A ug us t 20 , 20 07 T r i al c our tent ered an o rder grant i ng sum m ary j ud gm ent f or t he r e ma i n i n g d e f

e n d a n t s , Dr
. Cl a rk a n d Cl e v e l a n d M e d i c a l Ce n t e r , P LL C, on the b a s i s tha tPr i c e was u na bl e t o e s t a bl i s h a ny g e nu i ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

actthatD r . C l ark ha d devi at ed f r om the s t andar d of

car e at an y p oi ntdu r i ng the pe r i od of t i me f r om O c t ob e r1, 20 03 , thr ough J anuary 31, 2004. ¶5
. T h e Ju ly 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , O rd e r G ra n tin g P arti al Su m m ary Jud g m e n t d ism iss e d w ith pr ej udi ce the def

endant s s ubj ectt o i m m uni ty underthe M T C A
. A l l cl ai m s nots ubj ectt o the M T C A w er e di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce. A s t o the or i gi nal compl ai nt , t he t r i al cour tl ooked atthr ee s epar at e i s s ues : ( 1) w hatl egal e f f ects houl d be gi ven t o the or i gi nal compl ai nt , ( 2)
w hatl egal ef

f ects houl d be gi ven t o the s um m ons es i s s ued and s erved f ol l ow i ng the or i gi nal compl ai nt , and ( 3) w hatl egal ef f ectshoul d be gi ven t o t he r es pons es t hatthe def endant s f i l ed i n r es pons e t o the or i gi nal compl ai nt . T he tr i al courtf ound no conf

l i ctorambi gui ty betw een the s i xty- day- not i ce provi s i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 36 and the nonec onom i cdamages pr ovi s i on underSect i on 11- 1- 60. ¶6. T he tr i al court , r el yi ng on U ni v e rs it y of Mis s is s i

pp i Me dic al Center v. E as te r ling , 928 So. 2d 815 ( M i s s . 2006) , det erm i ned thatthe properr emedy f orvi ol at i ng the not i ce req u ir em en ts of S ec ti o n s 15 -1-3 6 (15 ) an d 1 1 -46 -11 w as d ism issal. M o reo v er, th e tri al co u rt det erm i ned that , s i nce the amended com pl ai nt , f i l ed i n J une 2005, w as the f i r s tcompl ai nt f i l ed af t eral l def

endant s had bee n i ssued pr opernot i ce of cl ai m , the amended compl ai nt
s houl d be t r eat ed as an or i gi nal compl ai nt . T hus , i n r ef err i ng t o the or i gi nal compl ai ntf i l ed on A ugus t31, 2004, the tr i al courto pine d that , “the s um m ons es i s s ued pur s uantt o s uch
com plai nt w ere of no legal eff ectan d any p l eadings fi l ed i n res po nse theret o w ere l i kew i se

### 8

m er e s urpl us age. ” The t r i al cour tal s o found that“no l eave of [ the] courtw as r equi r ed” w hen P ri c e fi le d th e J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , a m e n d e d c o m p la in t b e c a u s e “ th e re w a s n o th in g to a m e n d .” ¶7. M or eover , the tr i al court det erm i ned that A pr i l 9, 2004, the dat e of di agnos i s of t he pi tui t ary tum or , w as the dat e thatthe pl ai nt i f f s houl d have di s cover ed the al l eged ne gl i gence thatgave r i s e t o the ca us e of act i on. Si nce the or i gi nal compl ai ntno l ongerhad any l egal ef f ect , the tr i al courts t art ed the t ol l i ng of the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons w i th the f

i l i ng of the J une 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , am en d ed co m p lai n t. B ec au se th e a m e n d ed co m p lai n t w as n ev er se rve d o n D r. C l ark, A l l i ance , or C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, t he tr i al courtt ol l ed the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f or120 days pur s uantt o R ul e 4 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. L i kew i s e, t he tr i al courtt ol l ed the st at ute of l i m i t at i ons f

oronl y 120 days af

t erthe N ovember2, 2005,
se c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t w a s file d , b e c a u se P ric e ag a in fa iled to se rv e th e d e fe n d a n ts w ith th e se c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. U lti m a tely , the trial c o u rt fo u n d th a t, w ith a ll av a ilab le to lli n g – n in e ty -fiv e d a y s fo r th e n o tice -o f-c laim lette rs, a n d 1 2 0 d a y s fo r e a c h filed -b u tuns er ve d a mend e d c ompl a i nt– the on e - ye a rs t a tut e of l i mi t a t i on s un de rthe M TC A ha d
e x p ire d o n M a rc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 . T h u s, a ll c laim s a g a in st M T C A d e fe n d a n ts w e re d ism iss e d w ith pr ej udi ce. A l l cl ai m s agai ns tnon- M T C A def endant s w er e di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce. T he tr i al cour tdi d not , h ow ever, s peci f y w hi ch def

endant s w er e and w er e nots ubj ectt o t he M T CA
. ¶8. T he M ar ch 19, 2007, or der di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce the part i es s ubs t i tut ed f orJ ohn D o e s 1 -5 , inc lu d in g S a m u e l D u ff A u stin , M .D .; B e n n ie B a rn e tte W rig h t, Jr., M .D .; E sta te
o f Ba rry S t e p h e n S u l l i v a n , M
. D. ; Cl e v e l a n d M e d i c a l Cl i n i c , L t d
. ; a n d Cl e v e l a n d Cl i n i c , P A,

### 9

o n th e b a sis th a t all a p p lica b le s tatu tes o f li m itatio n s h a d ru n an d th e su b stitu ted p a rties d id notr el at e bac k t o the or i gi nal compl ai ntunder ei therR ul e 15( c) orR ul e 9( h) of t he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e. Fur therm or e, the tr i al courtf ound thatPr i ce ha d f

ai l ed t o u se due d i l i gen ce i n ascert ai ning t he i den t i t i es of these part i es. A l l cl ai m s ar i si ng against A l l i ance w er e di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce. A l l cl ai m s agai ns tD r . C l ark, dur i ng hi s empl oym ent
w i th A l l i ance and C l evel and M edi cal C l i nic, a se r vi ce of D el t a R egi onal M edi cal C ent er
w ere di sm i ssed w i th p rej ud i ce i n k eeping w i th the tri al cou rt ’s p revious fi nd i ng that these def endant s w er e s ubj ectt o M T C A i m m uni ty, and thus ent i t l ed t o di s m i s s al w i th pr ej udi ce d u e to th e ru n n ing o f th e s tatu te of li m it ati o n s. A ll o ther c lai m s em b rac ed b y the th ir d
a me n d e d c o mp l a i n ta g a i n s tDr
. Cl a r k a n d Cl e v e l a n d M e d i c a l Cl i n i c , P LL C, f r o m th e t i me per i od of O ct ober1, 2003, thr ough J anuary 31, 2004, w er e notdi s m i s s ed. ¶9
. A n o rde r en tere d o n A u g u st 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , g ran ted su m m ary jud g m en t in fav o r o f D r. C l ark an d C l eveland M edical C l i nic, P L L C , on the b asi s that Pri ce w as unab l e t o est abli sh
an y g en u ine issu e o f m aterial fac t th at D r. C lark h ad de v iat ed fr o m th e ap p li ca b le st an d ard
o f ca re a t any p o int f

rom O ctob er 1 , 2 0 0 3 , thro u g h Jan u ary 3 1 , 2 0 0 4
. T h u s, the circu itco u rt ent er ed a j udgm entdi s m i s s i ng w i th pr ej udi ce a l l cl ai m s agai ns tD r . C l ark and C l evel and M e d i c a l Cl i n i c , P LL C. DI S CU S S I ON ¶1 0
. P u rsua n t to R u le 56 (c ) o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , su m m a ry ju d g m e n t “s h a ll b e re n d e re d fo rth w ith if th e p lea d in g s, d e p o s itio n s, a n sw e rs to in ter ro g a to rie s a n d a d m iss io n s o n file , tog e th e r w ith th e a ffid a v its, if an y , sh o w th a t th e re is

### 10

no gen ui ne i s s ue as t o a ny mat er i al f acta nd the m ovi ng pa r ty i s e nt i t l ed t o j udgm ent as a
m att er o f l aw . ” M iss. R
. C iv. P. 56 (c). T h is C o u rtrev iew s a tri al co u rt ' s g ran t or d en ial o f a
m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o r a m o tio n t o d is m is s u n d e r a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd
. A r ceo v. T ol li ver , 949 So. 2d 691, 694 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng Mo n sa n to v. H a ll , 9 12 S o. 2d 134, 136 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ))
. M o re o v e r, th is C o u rt re v ie w s th e a p p lic a tio n o f t h e M T C A d e n o v o . L ee v. Mem 'l Hos p. , 999 So. 2d 1263, 1266 (M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng Cit y of Jacks on v. B r is ter , 838 So. 2 d 2 7 4 , 2 7 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )). ¶1 1
. P lai n ti ff Pric e e sp o u se s ten a ss ign m en ts of erro r by the tri al co u rtfor this C o u rt ’s
r e v i e w: ( 1) W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n notgr ant i ng Pl ai nti f f an exe m pt i on f

r om the not i c e r e qu i r e ment s un de rM i s s i s s i pp i Code Se c t i on s 15
- 1- 36 a nd11
- 46
- 11 beca us e hercaus e of

act i on ar os e w i thi n s i xty days of Sept ember1, 2004 ( the d a te th e n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s p u rsu a n t to S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -6 0 (a )(2 ) w e n t in to effec t) ; ( 2) W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng Pl ai nt i f f’ s or i ginal compl ai nt d u e to P lai n ti ff f

il ing h er c o m p lai n t on ly o n e d ay after th e N o ti ce -of -C laim L ett er; ( 3) W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n rul i ng thatPl ai nt i f f’ s A ugus t30, 2004, N ot i ce- of

- C l ai m l ett er s f

ai l ed t o s ubs t ant i al l y c om pl y w i th Sect i on 11- 46- 11; (4) W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n rul i ng thatPl ai nt i f f’ s or i gi nal A ugus t31, 2004, compl ai ntf

ai l ed t o t ol l the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons unt i l the courtent er ed an or derdi s m i s s i ng i ti n J ul y 2006; ( 5) W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n hol di ng Pl ai nt i f f t o the know l edge of C l evel and M edi cal A l l i ance ’ s s t atus as an “i ns trum ent al i ty” of G r eenw ood L e flo re H o sp ital; ( 6) W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n notal l ow i ng the Pl ai nt i f f t o conductf

ur ther di s covery and t o t ake depos i t i ons t o de t erm i ne the l evel of c ontr ol G r eenw ood

### 11

L e flo re H o sp ital h a d o v e r C lev e lan d M e d ic a l A lli a n c e , L L P , an d its em ployees; ( 7) W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n rul i ng thatC l evel and M edi cal A l l i ance , L L P, w as s ubj ectt o t he M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct , as an i ns trum ent al i ty of G re e n w o o d L e flo re H o sp ital; ( 8) W hetherC l evel and M edi cal A l l i ance , L L P, and D r . C l ark w ai ved affirm ati v e d efe n ses o f M T C A p rotec ti o n s b y w ait ing o v er o n e y ea r be fore r ai s i ng the def

ens e and by w ai t i ng a n a ddi t i onal f i ve m onths be f

ore not i ci ng m ot i ons t o di s m i s s f

ora hea r i ng, af

t eract i vel y part i ci pat i ng i n the l i t i gat i on of this m att er; (9) W hetherthe t ri al courterred i n dis m i ssi ng cl ai m s agai nstD efendan t s D rs . A us t i n, W r i gh t , Sul l i va n, Cl e ve l a nd M e di c a l Cl i ni c , LTD , a nd Cl e ve l and M ed ical C li n ic, P A , w h ich w ere ad d ed as n am ed D efe n d an ts i n the P lai n ti ff’ s T hi r d A m ended C om pl ai ntr epl aci ng the pr evi ous l y unnamed D ef endant s of J ohn D oes 1- 5; ( 10) W hetherthe tr i al court , al l ci r cumst ance s cons i der ed, err ed i n notgi vi ng P l ai nti ff her r i gh tt o redress i n the cou rt s. ¶1 2
. D r. S teve n C lark an d C leve land M ed ical C li n ic, P L L C , cro ss-ap p ea l the tr ial co u rt ’s A ugus t28, 2006, or derdenyi ng thei rm ot i on to am end j udgm entand the M ar ch 19, 2007, amended orde rgra nt i ng summ ary j udgm enton the bas i s t hatthe tr i al courterr ed i n f ai l i ng t o di s m i s s the cl ai m s agai ns tt hem w i th pre j udi ce due t o t he def

i ci entori gi nal compl ai ntand
s ubs equentamendm ent s . M or eover , thes e def endant s a s s ertthat , w i thouta ny t ol l i ng ef f ect by the compl ai nt s , t he onl y t ol l i ng i s t he si xty- day per i od f ol l ow i ng Pr i ce’ s A ugus t30, 2003,
n o tice -o f-c la im le tte rs f o r a ll n o n -M T C A c laim s, m e a n in g th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s w o u ld h av e e x p ir ed tw o y ea rs an d sixty d ay s after th e A p ri l 9, 20 0 4 , d iagn o sis o f M r. P ri ce ’s pi tui t ary tum or . A ccor di ng t o the def endant s , the expi r at i on of the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons
occurr ed on J une 8, 2006, w el l bef or e the J ul y 26, 2006, f i l i ng o f Pri ce’ s thi r d amended

### 12

c o m p lain t. T h e re fo re , the d e fe n d a n ts c o n ten d th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in g ra n tin g P ric e lea v e to
a m e n d a n d to fi le th e th ir d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. ¶13
. D ef

endant s D r s . A us t i n, W r i ght , and S ull i van ; and C l eveland M edical C l i nic Ltd. , and C l eveland C l i nic, P
. A
. , ask this C ou rtto aff i rm the t ri al co urt ’s d i sm i ssal o f al l cl ai m s agai nst them w i th pr ej udi ce. ¶14
. W e c o m bine, r est at e an d reo rde r t h ese v ariou s issue s for the sak e o f tod ay ’s di s cus s i on. I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N DI S M I S S I NG P L A IN T IF F ’S O R IG IN A L C O M P L A IN T D U E T O P L A IN T IF F ’S F AI LU RE TO COM P LY W I TH T HE S TA TU TORY NOTI CE R E Q U IR E M E N T S O F S E C T IO N S 1 5 -1-3 6 (15 ) A N D 1 1 -46 -11 (1). ¶ 1 5
. P ric e first filed su it o n A u g u st 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 , h a v in g m a iled n o tice -o f-c laim le tte rs o n ly one day pr i or , on A ugus t30, 2004. Pr i ce a dm i t s that , i n an att empt t o avoi d the cap on noneconomi c damages ef f ect i ve Sept em ber 1, 2004, s he w i l l f ul l y i gnor ed the s i xty- day not i ce r equi r ementof

M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 36 ( 15 )
. M i s s . Code A nn . § 1 5- 1- 36 ( 15) (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ). P ric e a rg u e s th a t s h e s h o u ld b e e x e m p t fro m th e six ty -d a y n o tice -o f-c laim
r equi r ementf

ound i n Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) and the ni nety- day not i ce- of
- cl ai m r equi r ement fou n d in S ec ti o n 1 1 -46 -11 (1) b ec au se th o se r e q u irem en ts w o u ld h av e su b jected P ri ce ’s
or i gi nal com pl ai ntt o t he noneconomi c cap on damages f ound i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 1- 60
. M i ss. C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 11( 1) ( R ev. 2002) ; M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 60 ( R ev. 2004)
. She a r gues s he s houl d notbe s ubj ectt o the noneconomi c- damages c ap bec aus e the l i m i t at i on w as noti n ef

f ectatthe t i m e of

M r . Pr i ce’ s death. The tr i al c our t ’ s opi ni on not ed

### 13

th a t P ric e c o u ld h a v e a v o id e d b e in g s u b jec t to th e S e p tem b e r 1 , 2 0 0 4 , ca p o n d a m a g e s o n ly i f s he had f

i l ed s i xty da ys a f

t erhe rhus band’ s di agnos i s a nd ha d notw ai t ed t o f i l e unt i l af

t er h is de ath. W e a g ree w ith the tri al co u rtin this resp ec t. T h e s tatu te of li m it ati o n s for a
w ro n g fu l-d e a th c laim is s u b jec t to , a n d lim ited b y , th e s tatu te o f lim itatio n s a ss o c iate d w ith th e u n d e rl y in g to rt th a t r e s u lte d in th e w ro n g fu l d e a th
. T h iro u x v. A u stin , 749 So. 2d 1040, 1042 ( M i s s . 1999)
. T o be more pr eci s e, the M i s s i s s i pp i w r on gf ul
- de a th s t a tut e , de s pi t e the Leg i s l a tur e ’ s a s s i gned n o m e n c latu re , en c o m p a ss e s a ll cla im s– in c lu d in g su rv iv a l cla im s w h ich c o u ld have been br oughtby the dece dent , w r ongf ul
- death c l ai m s , e s t at e cl ai m s , and othercl ai m s –r es ul t i ng f r om a t or tw hi ch proxim at el y caus ed a de ath. A nd w her e death i s notan i m m edi at e r es ul tof the t or t , the l i m i t at i on per i ods f orthe var i ous ki nds of

cl ai m s m ay notbegi n t o run atthe s ame t i m e. Caves v. Y

arbr ough , 991 So. 2d 142, 149- 50 ( M i s s . 2008)
. Thus, anal ys i s of the runni ng of the s tatu te of li m it atio n s in a w ron g ful-de ath c ase m ay d if fer from o n e c lai m to an o ther, dependi ng on t he part i cul arcl ai m as s ert ed. ¶1 6
. S tr ictco m p li an ce w ith statu tory n o ti ce is r eq u ire d , re g a rd les s o f w h y the p lai n ti ff fa ile d to p ro v id e n o tic e . See U ni v. o f Mis s . Me d. Ctr. v. Eas te r ling , 928 S o. 2d 815, 819- 20 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ); P italo v. GP C H - GP , I nc. , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d 9 2 7 , 9 2 9 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶17. Pr i ce a r gues that , b ecause t he casel aw pri ort o U ni vers it y of Mis s is s i ppi Medical Cente rv. Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d 815 (M i ss. 2 00 6), w as m or e l eni entas t o not i ce
re q u ir e m e n ts a n d b e c a u s e th is c a u s e o f a c tio n w a s fi le d in 2 0 0 4 , Eas te r lingshoul d notappl y. See e
. g. , Cit

y of P as cagoula v. T

om linson , 741 So. 2d 224, 228 ( M i s s . 1999) ( f i ndi ng t hat

### 14

d ism iss a l o f a law su it fo r fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith th e w a iti n g p e rio d w a s a d isp ro p o rtio n a te
r emedy)
. H ow ever , w e ha ve hel d thatthe s t atut ory not i ce i s r equi r ed f orcl ai m s f

i l ed on or
a ft e r J a n u a ry 1 , 2 0 0 3 , re g a rd le s s o f w h e n th e c la im a c c ru e d
. P ita lo , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 9 2 8 -2 9
. ¶1 8. T hus , di s m i s s al w as t he pr operr emedy f orf a i l ur e t o c ompl y w i t h t he not i ce req u ir em en ts. T h e law d id n o t cha n g e a s to th e n o tice p rov isi o n s. Itw as th is C o u rt ’s t ol er ance of

vi ol at i ng not i ce pr ovi s i ons thatw aned. A s thi s C our ts t at ed i n Eas te r ling : Si nce the M T C A ' s pa s s age i n 1993, a cons i der abl e amountof t i m e has pas s ed f orthe l egal pr of

es s i on t o become aw ar e of the ni nety- day not i ce r equi r ement in s e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ). See 1 9 9 3 M iss . L a w s 4 7 6 . T h e re su lt h e re , as in I vy , is t h atthe n i nety- day no t i ce requir em ent unde r s ect i on 11 -46-11(1) i s a “har d- edged, m andat ory rul e w hi ch the C our ts tr i ct l y enf or ces . ” U ni v. of Mis s . Me d. Ctr. v. Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d 815, 820 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng I vy v. GM AC , 6 1 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 )). ¶19. A s t o the r equi s i t e not i ce requir ed for m edical -negl i gen ce cl ai m s f al l i ng under Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) , thi s C our thas s t at ed: W hen i nt erpr et i ng a s t atute t hati s notambi guous , thi s C our tw i l l appl y the p la in m e a n in g o f t h e s ta tu te . Claypool v. M ladineo , 72 4 S o. 2d 37 3, 38 2 (M i ss. 1998)
. I n cons trui ng a s t atut e, the C our tm us ts eek the i nt ent i on of the L egi s l atur e, and know i ng i t , musta doptthati nt erpr et at i on w hi ch w i l l m eetthe re a l m e a n in g o f t h e L e g is la tu re . E vans v. B oyle Fl ying Serv i ce , I

nc. , 680 S o. 2d 821, 825 ( M i s s. 1 996)
. W hen dr af t i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 1 5 -1 -3 6 (1 5 ), th e L e g isla tu re d id n o t i n c o rp o ra te a n y g iv e n e x c e p tio n s to th is rul e w hi ch w oul d al l evi at e the pr er equi s i t e condi t i on of pr i orw r i t t en not i ce. S im p ly s ta te d , " s h a ll" is m a n d a to ry , w h ile " m a y " is d is c re tio n a ry . Fr anklin v. Fra n k lin , 858 So. 2d 110, 114 (M i s s . 2003)
. Pi t al o' s f ai l ur e t o s end not i ce of heri nt entt o s ue cl ear l y vi ol at es t he m andat ory i ns truct i ons concerni ng not i ce in M iss. C o d e A n n . S ec ti o n 1 5 -1-3 6 (15 ).

### 15

P i talo v. GP C

H - GP , I nc. , 93 3 So
. 2d 92 7, 92 9 ( M i s s . 20 06 )
. U nl e s s othe rw i s e s pe c i f i ed, d e c is io n s o f t h e M is s is s ip p i S u p re m e C o u rt a re p re s u m e d to h a v e a re tr o a c tiv e e ff e c t. Miss. Tr ans p. Com m '

n v. Ronald Adam s Contr ac tor , I nc . , 7 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 7 , 1 0 9 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). M i s s i s s i ppi l aw now r equi r es str i ctcompl i ance w i th the ni nety- day- not i ce r equi r ementi n t he M iss iss ip p i T o rt C laim s A c t. See M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ); L on g v. Mem 'l Hosp. at G u l

fport , 9 6 9 S o . 2 d 3 5 , 4 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ); Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d at819- 20. A cc o rdin g ly, th e tri al co u rtd id n o t err i n it s fi n d ing that the n o ti ce req u ir em en ts a re c lear,
m u s t b e s tr ic tly a p p lie d , a n d m u s t b e g iv e n re tr o a c tiv e e ff e c t. I I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ERRED I N RUL I NG THAT P L A IN T IF F ’S A U G U S T 30 , 200 4, N O T IC E -O F -C L A IM LETTE RS F AI LED TO SUBS TANTI ALLY CO M PLY W I TH S E C T IO N 1 1 -46 -11 (2). ¶2 0
. P ri ce arg u es th at th e tri al co u rterred in fi n d ing that the A u g u st 30 , 2 0 0 4 , n o ti ce -ofcl ai m l ett er s di d nots ubs t ant i al l y compl y w i th the s t atut ory r equi r ement s of M T C A , s ect i on 11 -46-11(2). T hat s ect i on st at es: E v e ry n o tice o f c laim re q u ire d b y su b se c tio n (1 ) o f th is s e c tio n sh a ll b e in w r i t i ng, and s hal l be del i ver ed in per s on orby r egi s t er ed orcert i f i ed U ni t ed St at es m ai l
. E very not i ce of cl ai m s hal l cont ai n a s hor tand pl ai n s t at ementof the f act s upon w hi ch the cl ai m i s based, i ncl udi ng the ci r cumst ance s w hi ch b rou g h t abo u t the injury , the e x tent o f th e inju ry, th e ti m e a n d p lace the in jury occurr ed, the nam es of al l per s ons know n t o be i nvol ved, the amountof m oney d a ma g e s s o u g h ta n d th e r e s i d e n c e o f th e p e r s o n ma k i n g t h e c l a i m a tth e t i me of the i nj ury and atthe t i m e of f i l i ng the not i ce. M i s s . Code A nn. §11- 46- 11( 2) ( R ev. 2002)
. M os tr ece nt l y, i n L ee v. Mem or ial Hos pital of G u l fport , 999 So. 2d 1263 (M i s s . 2008), t hi s C our tre af f i r m ed t hats ubs t ant i al compl i ance ,

### 16

n o t st ri c t c o m p lia n c e , w ith S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (2 ) i s re q u ir e d
. Id
. at1266 ( ci t i ng R e a v e s ex re l. R o u se v. R a n da ll , 729 So. 2d 1237, 1240 ( M i s s . 1998)
. “W hatcons t i tut es s ubs t ant i al
c o m p lia n c e , w h ile n o t a q u e s tio n o f f a c t b u t o n e o f la w , is a fa c t- s e n s itiv e d e te r m in a tio n .” Ca rrv. T

o w n o f S h u b u ta , 7 3 3 S o . 2 d 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). ¶21. D ef

endant s ar gue that Pr i ce f ai l ed t o compl y s ubs t ant i al l y w i th Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 2) i nas m uch as the l ett er s di d notcont ai n al l egat i ons of the natur e of

the negl i gentconductor actual ci r cumst ance s t hatbr oughtaboutthe i nj ury, the t i m e and pl ace of al l eged ne gl i gent conduct , the t i m e and pl ace w her e the i nj ury occurr ed, the names of a l l pe r s ons know n t o be inv o lved , the a m o u n t of m o n ey d am ag es so u g h t, o r claim an t’ s re side n ce a t th e ti m e o f i n jury and atthe ti m e of f

i l i ng the n oti ce. D efendan t s ar e corr ectin al m ostall of theirassert i on s. T he thr ee l ett er s , i dent i cal i n cont ent , cont ai ned no l anguage conce rni ng the t i m e per i od
w hen M r . Pr i ce al l egedl y s uf f er ed hi s i nj ury. A l s o, ther e al s o w as no ment i on of the names of the per s ons i nvol ved. I n f act , no m ent i on of

any phys i ci ans ’ nam es appea r ed i n the body
o f th e lette r. W h ile D r. C lar k ’s le tter p u t h im o n su ffic ien t n o tice , the lette rs a d d re ss e d to C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, PL L C , Pr ovi dence H eal thcar e C om pany, and A l l i ance coul d have
r ef err ed t o anyone e m pl oyed atthos e f aci l i t i es . M or eover , the not i ce- of- cl ai m lett erf or A lli a n c e w a s s e rv e d o n D r. C lar k , w h o a t n o tim e w a s a u th o riz e d to a c c e p t se rv ice o n b e h a lf
o f th e c li n ic. L ett ers to G reen w o o d L eflore H o sp it al an d D elt a R eg ion al M ed ical C en ter w ere nots entunt i l F ebruary 2005. Fur therm or e, the l ett er s di d notcont ai n a monet ary amount of th e d a ma g e s s o u g h to rth e r e s i d e n c e o f th e c l a i ma n te i th e ra tth e t i me o f i n j u ry o ra tth e t i me

### 17

o f t h e fi lin g o f t h e c o m p la in t. See P arker v . Harrison Cou n t y B d. of Su

pervisors , 987 So. 2 d 4 3 5 , 4 4 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). ¶ 2 2
. A c c o rd in g ly , the trial c o u rt d id n o t e rr in c o n c lu d in g th a t su b sta n tial c o m p lian c e w ith Sect i on 11-46- 11( 2) w as t he pr operst andar d, and i n fi ndi ng thatt he A ugus t30, 2004, not i ceof
- cl ai m l ett er s di d nots ubs t ant i al l y compl y w i th Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 2)
. T hi s i s s ue i s w i thout
m e rit. I I I . W HET HER THE T RI AL COUR T ER RE D I N R ULI NG THAT

P LA I NT I F F ’ S ORI GI NAL, AUGUS T 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 , COM P LA I NT F A IL E D T O T O L L T H E S T A T U T E O F L IM IT A T IO N S U N T IL THE CO URT ENTERED A N O RDER DI S M I S S I NG I T I N J ULY 2006. ¶23. I n i t s i ni t i al rul i ng on J ul y 24, 2006, the tr i al c our tgr ant ed part i al s um m ary j udgm ent i n f avorof def endant s , di s m i s s i ng al l def endant s s ubj ectt o M T C A i m m uni ty w i th pr ej udi ce
a n d a ll d e fe n d a n ts n o t su b je c t to M T C A im m u n ity w ith o u t p re ju d ice . T h e trial c o u rt in its A m e n d e d O rd e r, en ter e d M a rc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , cla ri fi e d th a t A lli a n c e , at a ll t im e s d u rin g its
e x iste n c e (M a y 3 0 , 1 9 9 7 , u n til S e p tem b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 ) w a s s u b jec t to M T C A im m u n ity d u e to i t s af f i l i at i on w i th G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al
. D r . C l ark w as an empl oyee of A l l i ance f

r om 1 9 9 9 u n til S e p tem b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 ; th e re fo re , h e w a s s u b jec t to M T C A im m u n ity d u rin g th is t i m e per i od. M or eover , on February 1, 2004, D r . C l ark becam e an e m pl oyee of C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, an ent i ty ow ned and ope r at ed by D el t a R egi onal M edical C ent er–t hus
r egai ni ng hi s M T C A i m m uni ty.

### 18

¶2 4. Pr i ce ar gues t hatt he or i gi nal A ugus t31, 2004 , c ompl a i ntt ol l e d the s t a tut e of lim itatio n s a s to b o th th e M T C A a n d S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 6 c laim s, g iv e n tha t i t w a s filed w ith in the one- years t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons underthe M T C A and the t w o-years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons underSect i on 15- 1- 36. A ccor di ng t o the def endant s , al l cl ai m s agai nstM T C A and nonM T C A def

endant s s houl d have be en di s m i ssed aga i ns tthem w i th pr ej udi ce be caus e the
or i gi nal compl ai ntw as i nval i d f orw antof

ei thers i xty- day not i ce p ur s ua ntt o Sect i on 15- 1- 36
orni nety- day not i ce pur s uantt o t he M T C A , thus , thatcompl ai ntf ai l ed t o have a ny t ol l i ng
e ff e c t. ¶25. B eca us e i tw as di s m i s s ed f orw antof

pr opernot i ce, the tr i al courtgave no l egal ef f ect t o the or i gi nal compl ai nt . T her ef or e, the tr i al courtf

ound t hatthi s compl ai nts houl d have no t ol l i ng ef f ectf orei therthe M T C A or Sect i on 15-1- 36 cl ai m s . T he t r i al cour ttr eat ed the J une 2005 A m ended C om pl ai nta s the or i gi nal c om pl ai ntbeca us e i tw as the f i r s tcompl ai ntf

i l ed aft er al l defend ants had been served no t i ce-of -cl ai m l et t ers . ¶26. T he tr i al cour tbegan the t ol l i ng of the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons w i th the February 3, 2005, M T C A n o ti ce -of-claim let ters. A s o f F eb rua ry 3 , 2 0 0 5 , ac co rdin g to the tr ial co u rt , there
w er e s i xty- f

i ve days l ef

ti n w hi ch t o fi l e t he com pl ai nt . T hus , M ay 9, 2005, w as the ni netyf i f th day. B eca us e the A m ended Com pl ai ntand the Second A m ended Com pl ai ntw er e neve r
s erved on D r . C l ark, A l l i ance , or C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, t he t r i al cour tal l ow ed 120 days of t ol l i ng foreach amended com pl ai ntt o be count ed t ow ar d the M T C A and Sect i on 15- 1- 36 sta tu te o f li m itatio n s. A c c o rd in g to th e tri a l co u rt, b y Ju n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , six tee n d a y s w e re lef t,

### 19

and the r emai ni ng s i xt een da ys began t o run on the on e-hund red- tw ent i eth day, thatbei ng O ct ober25, 2005. T he tr i al courtf ou nd that , w i th pos s i bl e s t ays and t ol l i ng, the one- year
s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons r an aga i ns tal l M T C A def endant s on M ar ch 10, 2006. A s a r es ul t , the tr i a l c o u r td i s mi s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e a l l d e f

e n d a n t s s u b

j e c tt o th e M TCA. Al l n o n - M TCA def endant s w er e di s m i s s ed w i thoutpre j udi ce ba s ed on the tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ng thatthe tw oy e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s h a d n o t ru n fo r S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 6 . T h is o rd e r w a s e n ter e d o n Ju ly 24, 2006. ¶2 7
. N o p rec ed en t i s c it ed b y eith er the tr ial co u rto r th e p arti es su p p o rt ing the tri al co u rt ’s f ai l ur e t o g i ve a tol l i ng ef f ectt o t he or i gi nal compl ai ntdue t o Pr i ce’ s f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de
s t atut ory not i ce. R ul e 3( a) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e s t at es “[ a] ci vi l act i on i s comm ence d by f

i l i ng a compl ai ntw i th the court . ” O r di nar i l y, w hen a c om pl ai nti s f i l ed
a n d p ro p e rl y se rv e d , th a t c o m p la in t to lls th e ru n n in g o f t h e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . O w ens v. Mai , 8 9 1 S o . 2 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). ¶28. T he def

endant s argue t hat di sm i ssal w i t h prej ud i ce o f M T C A cl ai m s s houl d be
a ffirm e d a n d th a t all S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 6 cla im s a g a in st th e m sh o u ld h a v e b e e n d ism iss e d w ith pr ej udi ce be caus e no val i d or i gi nal compl ai nt w as eve rf i l ed due t o the vi ol at i on of the sta tu to ry n o tice re q u ire m e n ts. T h e d e fe n d a n ts c o n ten d th a t th e trial c o u rt w a s c o rre c t in its f i ndi ng thatthe si xty- day not i ce i s m andat ory f orf i l i ng a val i d Sect i on 15- 1- 36 compl ai nt and ni nety- day not i ce i s m andat ory f orf i l i ng a val i d M T C A com plai nt . M or eover , t he d e fe n d a n ts in terp re t B unton v. King , 995 So. 2d 694 ( M i s s . 2008) , as holdi ng t hat

### 20

s ubs e qu e nta mend ment s t o p l e a di ng s c a nn otbe f ou nd t o c ur e vi ol a t i on s of not i ce
r equi r ement s , thus , no val i d compl ai nt s have be en f i l ed t o dat e. ¶ 2 9
. D e fe n d a n ts a re c o rr e c t i n th e ir a s s e rt io n th a t B unton s t ands f orthe pr emi s e that
n o tice -o f-c laim lette rs a n d a m e n d m e n ts f iled a fte r th e s u it is c o m m e n c e d w ill n o t co n stitu te
v a lid n o tic e o r p re v e n t d is m is s a l o f a s u it. I d. at696. I n Bunton, the p lain tiffs filed su it o n ly
s even da ys af

t ers endi ng a M T C A not i ce- of
- cl ai m l ett eri n c l earvi ol at i on of the ni nety- dayn o tic e re q u ir e m e n t o f S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ). I d. T h e tri a l co u rt g ra n ted th e p lain tiffs le a v e to amend and s ubs equent l y hel d t hatthe amended compl ai ntr el at ed bac k t o the dat e of t he
or i gi na l c ompl a i ntu nd e rM i s s i s s i pp i Rul e o f Ci vi l Pr oc e du r e 1 5( c ) , f orthe p urpos e of

t he
s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . I d. at 6 9 5
. T h is C o u rt h e ld th e p lain tiffs’ a m e n d e d c o m p lain t co u ld nots erve t o cur e the f

ai l ur e t o pr ovi de ni nety- day not i ce and thatdi s m i s s al w as the pr oper
re m e d y . I

d. a t 6 9 6
. B unton s houl d not , how ever , be i nterpret ed as abr ogat i ng t he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e i n f

avorof s t atut ory pr e- s ui tnot i ce r equi r ement s by i nval i dat i ng compl ai nt s thatw er e pr oper l y f i l ed and s erved. ¶3 0
. W h il e fa il u re to p rov ide p rop er statutory n o ti ce ca n n o t be c u red b y serv ing n o ti ce -ofcl ai m l ett er s af

t era com pl ai nti s f

i l ed, a pr oper l y s erved compl ai nt–al bei ta compl ai ntt hat is w a n tin g o f p ro p e r p re -s u it n o tice

– sh o u ld still se rv e to to ll th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s u n til ther e i s a rul i ng f

r om the tr i al court . I n tr eat i ng the or i gi nal c om pl ai nta s i f i tw as neverf

i l ed, the tr i al courtdet erm i ned thatthe s um m onses i s s ued pur s uantt o the or i gi nal compl ai ntand th e re sp o n se filed b y D r. P a n d e w e re s u rp lu s a g e . In d o in g so , the trial c o u rt d e c lin e d to

### 21

addr es s the de f

e nd a nt s ’ c on t e nt i on tha tD r . Cl a rk was i mpr op e r l y s e r ve d o n b e ha l f of A l l i ance o n the basi s that he w as not a desi gn at ed ag ent f or service o f p roc ess. B ecause ther e i s no f

i ndi ng on the r ecor d by the tr i al courton the i s s ue of w hetherA l l i ance has ever b ee n p rop erly se rve d w ith p roc ess, th is case m u st be rem a n d e d to th e tri al co u rtfor a det erm i nat i on of

thi s i s s ue. ¶ 3 1
. A c c o rd in g ly , w e a g re e w ith P ric e th a t th e A u g u st 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 , c o m p lain t w a s p ro p e rly f i l ed and s erved w i thi n bot h the one- years t at ute of l i m i t at i ons underM T C A and the tw oyears t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons underSect i on 15- 1- 36 as t o def endant s D r . C l ark and t he C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c. B eca us e Pr i ce f ai l ed t o compl y w i th the r equi s i t e not i ce
r equi r ement s , di s m i s s al w as the pr operr emedy; how ever , the tr i al courterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng thes e def

endant s w i th pr ej udi ce, gi ven thatthe co m pla i nts erved t o t ol l the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons unt i l the tr i al court ’ s J ul y 2006 rul i ng. I V. W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N HOLDI NG P LA I NT I F F TO THE KNOW LE DGE OF CL EV EL AND M E D I CAL ALLI A N CE’ S S T A T U S AS AN “ I NS TR UM EN TA LI TY ” OF GRE EN W OOD LE F LORE HO S PI TAL. ¶32. C l evel and M edi cal A l l i ance has been f ound by thi s C our t t o be an i ns trum ent al i ty of G re e n w o o d L e fl o re H o s p ita l s u b je c t to th e p ro te c tio n s o f M T C A
. See E s tate of G r im es v. W ar r ington , 982 So. 2d 365, 369 ( M i s s . 2008)
. Pr i ce a r gues thats he had no w ay of know i ng of the af f i l i at i on betw een Cl evel and M edi cal A l l i ance and G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al bef or e f i l i ng s ui t , s i nce Cl evel and M edi cal A l l i ance w as no l ongeri n exi s t ence and di d not

### 22

atany t i m e adve rt i s e i t s af f i l i at i on w i th G r eenw oo d L efl ore H ospit al
. T he d efendan t s contend that , af t erPr i ce w as i nf

or m ed of Cl evel and M edi cal A l l i ance ’ s s t atus as a M T C A
- cover ed ent i ty, s he had ampl e t i m e bef or e the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons expi r ed t o pr ovi de pr opernot i ce
a n d file s u it ag a in st it. In su p p o rt o f th is a rg u m e n t, th e d e fe n d a n ts re fe r to a lette r se n t to Pr i ce da t ed D ecember23, 2004, thati ndi cat ed thatC l evel and M edi cal A l l i ance , L L P, w as
a n in stru m e n tality o f G re e n w o o d -L e flo re H o sp ita l. A d d iti o n a lly , the d e fe n d a n ts m a in tain that , al ong w i th thi s l ett er , they p rovi ded t he A gr eementof Par tner s hi p f

orA l l i ance , t he Physi ci an Em pl oym entA gr eementbetw een D r . St even Cl ark and A l l i ance ; and the Partner s hi p D i s s ol ut i on f orA l l i ance ; the O per at i ng A greem ent f or C l eveland M edical C l i ni c, PL L C ; and the Phys i ci an Em pl oym entA gr eementf orD r . St even Cl ark and D el t a R egi onal M edi cal C ent er . Pr i ce c oncede s thats he r ece i ved thi s doc um ent at i on a nd the D ece m ber23, 2 0 0 4 , let ter. ¶3 3. T he def

endant s f

ur the ra r gu e tha t , e ve n i f Pr i ce ha d f

i l ed t he s ui tw i t h l i m i t ed know l edg e of the af

f i l i at i on, s he coul d have c ur ed any pr ocedur al def i ci t s upon r ece i ptof
n o tice b y d e fe n se c o u n se l as e a rly a s D e c e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 . T h e tria l c o u rt d id n o t er r in hol di ng Pr i ce t o know l edge of the af f i l i at i on. ¶ 3 4
. W e th u s fin d th is iss u e to h a v e n o m e rit. V. W HET HER T HE TR I AL COUR T ER RE D I N N OT AL LOW I NG P L AI NT I F F T O C ON DU CT F UR T HE R D I S CO VE RY AN D T AK E DE P OS I T I ON S T O D E T E RMI NE T HE L E VE L OF CO NTRO L GREENW OO D LEFL OR E HO S PI TAL HA D O VER

### 23 CLEVE LAND M EDI CAL ALLI ANC E, LLP , AND I TS EM PL O Y EE S. VI . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COUR T ERRE D I N RUL I NG THAT CLEVELAND M EDI CAL A LLI ANC E, LLP , W AS S UBJ ECT TO THE M I S S I S S I P P I TO RT C LAI M S AC T, AS AN I NS TR UM E NT AL I T Y O F GR E E NWOOD L EF LORE HO S PI TAL. ¶ 3 5
. P ric e arg u e s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rr e d in n o t a llo w in g h e r t h e o p p o rt u n ity , v ia di s covery, t o pr ove thatC l evel and M edi cal A l l i ance , L L P, w as not an i ns trum ent al i ty of G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al
. T he def

endant s poi ntt o the f

actthats chedul ed depos i t i ons of D r . St even Cl ark w er e ca ncel l ed atthe agr eementof Pr i ce a nd w er e neve rr es chedul ed by Pr i ce. M or eover , the def endant s ar gue thatPri ce w oul d have made the s ame ar gum ent s at tr i al thatw er e made by t he pl ai nt i f f i n E s tate of

G r im es v. W

ar r ington , 982 So. 2d 365 ( M i s s . 2008) , w hi ch w er e r ej ect ed f l at l y by thi s C our ti n G r im es . F in a lly , the d e fe n d a n ts
ar gue t hat , even i f

P r i ce had bee n al l ow ed di s covery as t o t hi s i s s ue, i tw oul d nothave s erved t o di ves tA l l i ance of

i t s M T C A pr ot ect i on. ¶36. I n E state of

G rim es, th e iss u e b e fo re th is C o u rt w a s w h e th e r A lli a n c e w a s e n tit led to the pr ot ect i ons , l i m i t at i ons , and i m m uni t i es of the M T C A as an “i ns trum ent al i ty” of G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al
. I n r eac hi ng i t s de ci s i on, the C our ti n G r im es r el i ed on B oli var L e f lo r e Me di c a l

A l lia n c e, L L Pv. Wil

lia ms , 938 So. 2d 1222 ( M i s s . 2006) , a ca s e i nvol vi ng a partner s hi p a gr eementbe tw een a m edi cal c l i ni c and G r eenw ood Lef l or e H os pi t al thatw as
n ea rl y iden ti ca l i n i ts pro v isi o n s to the ag ree m en t betw ee n A ll ianc e a n d G ree n w o o d L eflore

### 24

H os pi t al
. J us tas i n B oli varL ef lor e Medical

A l liance , the C our ti n G r im es f ound thatt he p a rtn e rsh ip a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n G re e n w o o d L e flo re H o sp ital a n d A lli a n c e e n tit led th e c lin ic and i t s em pl oyee t o t he pr ot ect i on of the M T C A , beca us e G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al had
m a in ta in e d s u ff

ic ie n t c o n tr o l o v e r th e c lin ic a n d its e m p lo y e e . E s ta te o f G r im e s, 982 So. 2d at 36 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). ¶37. Pr i ce a t t empt s t o di s t i ngui s h the def endanti n G r im es fr om the d efendan t s i n thi s case b y p o in tin g to th e f

a c t t h a t D r. W a rrin g to n , the d e fe n d a n t in G r im es , w as a partnerof C l evel and M edi cal A l l i ance r at her t han an em pl oyee, as i s the ca s e w i th D r . C l ark. T he anal ys i s by thi s C our ti n G r im es , ho w ever, w as not based on D r. W arringt on ’s st atus as a partner , nordoe s the M T C A make i m m uni ty c ont i ngenton w hethera def endanti s a partner
v e r s u s a n e mp l o y e e . M o r e o v e r , P r i c e h a d n o t i c e o f Cl e v e l a n d M e d i c a l Al l i a n c e ’ s M TCA sta tu s a s e a rly a s D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 . A s p re v io u sly d isc u s s e d , th e tr ia l co u rt d id n o t er r in f i ndi ng thatP r i ce ha d ampl e opportuni ty t o corr ectherpr ocedur al m i s s t eps . Forthe r eas ons sta ted , w e th u s fin d th is iss u e to h a v e n o m e rit. VI I . W H ETH ER TH E C LEV EL AN D M ED I CA L A LLI AN CE , LLP, AN D D R. CL AR K W AI VE D A F F I RMAT I VE DE F E NS E S OF M TC A P ROTE CT I ONS BY W AI TI NG M ORE T HAN ONE YE AR BE F ORE RAI S I NG THE DE F EN S E A ND B Y W AI TI NG AN AD DI T I ON AL F I VE M ON T HS B E F OR E NO T I CI NG M OTI ON S TO D I SM I S S FOR A H EARI NG AFTER P ART I CI P AT I NG I N T HE L I TI GATI ON OF THI S M AT TE R. ¶ 3 8
. P r i c e c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e d e f e n d a n t s wa i v e d t h e a f f i r ma t i v e d e f

e n s e o f M TCA pr ot ect i on by thei rdel ay i n r ai s i ng the def ens e i n thei rans w eran d by subs equentact i ve

### 25

part i ci pat i on i n the l i t i gat i on . T he def endant s cont end thatthei rdel ay i n ans w er i ng w as at P ri ce’s requestso t hat s he co uld have an o pp ortun i ty to cure any p rocedu ral defect s. ¶39. O r di nar i l y, d el ay cou pled w i t h acti ve part i ci pat i on i n a l aw s ui ts erves t o w ai ve
a ff ir m a tiv e d e fe n s e s th a t o th e rw is e w o u ld te rm in a te th e a c tio n . M S Cr edit Center , I nc. v. Hor ton , 926 So. 2d 167, 181 ( M i s s . 2006)
. T hi s C our tconsi ders M T C A i m m uni ty an
a ff ir m a tiv e d e fe n s e . E s tate of G r im es v. W

ar r ing ton , 982 So. 2d 365, 370 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng Cit

y of E l lis vil le v. R i char ds on , 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 9 7 3 , 9 7 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ); L u m b e rm a n 's U n de rw ritin gA llia n c e v. City o f R o se da le , 7 2 7 S o . 2 d 7 1 0 , 7 1 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ); D i xon v. Singing R i verHos

p. Sys
. , 632 So. 2d 951, 952 ( M i s s . 1991) )
. I n G r im es , thi s C our tf ound th a t D r. W a rrin g to n w a iv e d h is M T C A d e fe n se w h e n h e rais e d itin h is a n sw e r b u t fa iled to f i l e a mot i on t o di s m i s s on thi s ground and i ns t ead enga ged i n l i t i gat i on by cons ent i ng t o a
s c h e d u lin g o rd e r, p a rt ic ip a tin g in w ri tte n d is c o v e ry , a n d c o n d u c tin g d e p o s itio n s . G r im es , 982 So. 2d at370. ¶ 4 0
. T h e d e fe n d a n ts a rg u e th a t, at P ric e ’s r e q u e s t, t h e y w a ite d m o re th a n o n e y e a r to
answ erPr i ce’ s or i gi nal A ugus t31, 2004, compl ai nt . M or eover , Pr i ce f ai l ed t o s erve her amended C om pl ai ntand s econd a m ended c om pl ai nton the def endant s . T hi s C our tagr ees
w i th the def

endant s thatPr i ce s houl d notbe abl e t o m ake a n ar gum entthathercas e w as pr ej udi ced by the def

endant s ’ del ay w hen s he r eques t ed thatal l def endant s notf

i l e any
r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g s u n t i l s h e wa s a b l e t o a s c e r t a i n wh i c h d e f e n d a n t s we r e s u b

j e c tt o M TCA im m u n ity . A c c o rd in g ly , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.

### 26

VI I I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N DI S M I S S I NG C LA I M S A G A I N ST N EW LY - N A M ED D E FE N D A N TS D R S. AUS TI N, W RI GH T, S UL LI VAN, CL EV EL AND M ED I CAL CL I NI C, LT D, AND CL EV EL AND M ED I CAL CL I NI C, P A, W HI CH W E RE AD DE D A S NA M E D D E F E ND AN T S I N T HE P LA I NT I F F ’ S T HI RD AM EN DE D COM P LA I NT , RE P LA CI NG T H E P R E V I O U SL Y - U N N A M E D D E F E N D A N T S JO H N D O E S 1- 5. ¶41. T his assi gn m ent of err or i nv olves the tr i al court ’ s rul i ng as t o the new l y- named d efe n d an ts i n th e thir d am en d ed co m p lai n t. P ri ce fi led th is th ir d am en d ed co m p lai n t m o re th a n tw o y e a rs a fte r th e d iag n o sis o f h e r h u sb a n d ’s tu m o r; th u s, if th e su b stitu ted p a rties d id notr el at e back t o J ohn D oes 1- 5, Pr i ce’ s compl ai ntw as t i m e- barr ed as t o the new l y- named def endant s . T he def

endant s i n thi s t hi r d amended compl ai nt , f i l ed J ul y 26, 2006, w er e as fo llo w s : S te v e n C la rk , M .D .; S a m u e l D u ff A u s tin , M .D .; B e n n ie B a rn e tte W ri g h t, J r., M .D .; E s t at e of B arr y St ephen Sul l i van, M
. D
. ; C l evel and M edi cal A l l i ance , L L P; C l evel and M edical C l i nic, P L L C ; C l eveland M edical C l i nic, L t d.; a n d C l eveland C l i nic, P
. A
. D rs . A us t i n, W r i ght , and Sul l i van, as w el l as C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, L t d. and C l evel and C l i ni c, P. A
. , w er e adde d i n the thi r d am ended compl ai nti n pl ace of J ohn D oes 1- 5, as s etout in th e o rig in a l A u g u st 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 , co m p lain t. ¶42. D r. C l ark, A l l i ance, and C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, PL L C , ar gue that , beca us e the
or i gi nal compl ai nthad no ef f ectonce di s m i s s ed, any am ended c om pl ai ntcannotr el at e bac k to the A u g u st 31 , 2 0 0 4 , o ri g inal co m p lai n t un d er M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 5 (c),
w hi ch al l ow s f

orchangi ng a pa r ty w her e a pr evi ous l y- named party w as mi s t akenl y i ncl uded i n the or i gi nal c om pl ai nt . R ul e 15( c) ( 2) m akes the f ol l ow i ng di s t i nct i on betw een c hangi ng

### 27

a par t y and s ub s t i tut i ng a pa r ty: “ A n a mend mentpu r s ua ntt o 9 ( h) i s no ta n a mend ment changi ng the party agai ns tw hom a cl ai m i s as s ert ed and s uch am endmentre l at es back t o the d ate o f th e o ri g inal p lead ing
. ” M iss. R
. C iv. P. 15 (c)(2). ¶43. T he tr i al court f

ound that , beca us e J ohn D oes 1- 5 w er e r et ai ned i n both the amended and s econd amended com pl ai nt s , butel i m i nat ed i n t he t hi r d amended compl ai nt , i tw as cl ear thatPr i ce i nt ended f

ort he new l y- named def endant s i n the thi r d ame nd ed com pl ai ntt o be
s ubs t i tut ed f

orJ ohn D oes 1-5, as oppos ed t o re pl aci ng m i s t akenl y- i dent i f i ed par t i es w i t h the
co rrect pa rt ies. L ikew ise, P ri ce c h o o ses to tr av el un d er M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 9( h) i n s uppor tof

herar gum entt hat the J ohn D oes 1- 5 w er e f i ct i t i ous part i es . R ul e 9( h) st at es: W h e n a p a rty is ig n o ra n t o f th e n a m e o f a n o p p o sin g p a rty a n d so a lleg e s in h is p lea d in g , the o p p o sin g p a rty m a y b e d e sig n a ted b y a n y n a m e , an d w h e n h is true name i s di s cover ed the pr oces s and al l pl eadi ngs and pr oceedi ngs i n the act i on m ay be a m ended by s ubs t i tut i ng t he t rue nam e and gi vi ng prope rnot i ce t o the oppos i ng party. M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 9( h)
. A s the tr i al courtapt l y expl ai ned, a R ul e 9( h) amendm entdoes not change the party, butsuppl i es “t he t rue i dent i ty of a party w ho i s al r eady i n l i t i gat i on. ” The trial c o u rt’s o p in io n e x p lain e d th e p u rp o se o f R u le 9 (h ) a s fo llo w s: Itis si g n if

ican t th at th e w o rd “ u n k n o w n ” d o es n o t app ea r in M R C P 9 (h). R atherthe rul e spe ak[ s ] i n t erm s of a pl ai nt i f

f bei ng “i gnor antof

the name of an oppos i ng party. ” Thus, the l anguage of M R C P 9( h) ass um es t he exi s t ence of s uch a pa r ty and the pl ai nt i f f’ s aw ar enes s of

s uch exis t ence. I ti s notthe in ten t o f M R C P 9 (h ) to p e rm it a p lain tiff to b rin g in to th e lit ig a tio n d e fe n d a n ts w hos e exi s t ence w as unknow n t o the pl ai nt i f f atthe comm ence m ento f the act i on.

### 28

T he tr i al courtf

ound that , atthe t i m e t he or i gi nal com pl ai ntw as f i l ed, Pr i ce ne i therknew t he i dent i t i es of

the part i es , norw as s he aw ar e of any f act s gi vi ng r i s e to a ny caus e of act i on
a g a in st s u c h u n k n o w n in d iv id u a l o r c o rp o ra te e n tity ; th e re fo re , the trial c o u rt d id n o t er r in f i ndi ng thatPr i ce’ s subs t i tut i on di d notcom por tw i th the purpos e of R ul e 9( h)
. Fur therm or e, the tr i al cou rtfound that Pri ce did no tactw i th reasonab l e dil i gen ce i n ident i fyi ng these part i es. ¶4 4
. T h e d e fe n d a n ts a rg u e th a t th e tria l c o u rt w a s co rrect i n asm u ch as P ri ce ’s thir d
am end ed co m plai nt canno trel at e back t o h er or i ginal A ug ust31 , 20 04 , com plai nt, becau se
s he f ai l ed t o us e due di l i gence i n as cer t ai ni ng the i dent i ty of the al l eged t or t f

eas or s . Pr i ce
conce des thati n J ul y 2004, s he obt ai ned medi cal r ecor ds f r om Cl evel and M edi cal C l i ni c that dat ed bac k t o 2001; how ever , Pr i ce ar gues thatCl evel and M edi cal Cl i ni c, L t d. , A l l i ance , and C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, PL L C , w er e i dent i f i ed am bi guous l y i n the medi cal r ecor ds as Cl e v e l a n d Cl i n i c , th u s , a c c o r d i n g t o P r i c e , g i v i n g th e i mp r e s s i o n th a tth e y we r e a l l th e s a me cl i ni c. Pr i ce a dm i t s t hatshe cons ul t ed an expertpr i ort o f i l i ng s ui t ; how ever , upon obt ai ni ng
mo r e me d i c a l r e c o r d s , P r i c e ’ s e x p e r twa s a b l e t o o f f e ra n o p i n i o n t h a ta r e f

e rr a l f o ra n M RI
s houl d have be en made af t erM r . Pr i ce be cam e bl i nd i n 1989. I n s uppor tof herar gum ent that R ule 9( h) al l ow s forfi ct i t i ou s part i es w here a plai nti ff is i gn orantof the fact s gi ving ri se t o a cau se of act i on , P ri ce ci t es W om ble v. Singing R i verHos pital , 61 8 S o. 2d 12 52 (M i ss. 1993)
. I n W

o m b le thi s C our ts t at ed: I ti s a pr i nci pl e of

gener al appl i cat i on, though, thati gnor ance of the oppos i ng part y forfi ct i t i ous party pr act i ce e xt ends beyond mer e l ack of know l edge of the oppos i ng party' s name. E ven i f the pl ai nt i f

f kno w s the true name of the

### 29

p e rso n , h e is s til l ig n o ra n t o f h is n a m e if h e lac k s k n o w le d g e o f th e fa c ts gi vi ng hi m a ca us e of

act i on agai ns tthatper s on. I d. at1267. ¶45. O n the otherhand, the def endant s ci t e R aw s on v. Jones , 8 1 6 S o . 2 d 3 6 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ), fo r th e p re m ise th a t R u le 9 (h ) r e q u ire s a p lain tiff to p u rsu e re a so n a b ly d ili g e n t in q u iry in to the true i dent i t i es of

the f i ct i t i ou s par t i es “thr ough the us e of j udi ci al m echa ni s m s s uch as di s covery. ” Id
. at369 ( ci t i ng D oe v. Mis s . Bloo d Se r v s . , I nc . , 7 04 S o. 2 d 1 01 6, 10 19 (M i ss. 1997) )
. T he C our ti n R aw s on em p h as ize d that the lan g u ag e o f W om ble i s nott o be i nt erpr et ed as gi vi ng “pot ent i al pl ai nt i f f s perm i s s i on t o s i ton thei rr i ght s . ” R aw s on , 816 So. 2d at369. ¶ 4 6
. T h e tri a l co u rt d id n o t err in fin d in g th a t P ri c e w a s n o t r e a s o n a b ly d ilig e n t in
as cert ai ni ng the f

act s thatgave r i s e t o hercl ai m s agai ns tt he subs t i tut ed def endant s and that
s he thus w as notent i t l ed t o t he s hi el d of R ul e 9( h)
. Pr i ce r ece i ved m edi cal r ecor ds pert ai ni ng to h e r h u sb a n d ’s tre a tm e n t p rio r to filing su it, a n d th e d e fe n d a n ts p ro v id e d h e r w ith A l l i ance ’ s partner s hi p agr eementand D r . C l ark’ s empl oym entr ecor ds as ear l y as D ece m ber 2004. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd thatthe tr i al courtcomm i t t ed no err ori n det erm i ni ng thatt he compl ai ntnami ng the s ubs t i tut ed part i es di d notr el at e back t o the or i gi nal compl ai ntunder any appl i cabl e rul e of

ci vi l pr ocedur e. T he tr i al courtdi d noterri n f i ndi ng thatPr i ce ha d f ai l ed t o us e due di l i gence i n as cert ai ning the i dent i t i es of the pr operpart i es , and thatt he M T C A one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had thus run atthe t i m e Pr i ce f i l ed s ui tagai ns tt he

### 30

afor em enti on ed d efendan t s. In sum , the t ri al cou rtcom m i t t ed n o err or i n d i sm i ssi ng t ho se def endant s w i th pr ej udi ce. I X. W HE T HE R T HE T RI AL CO UR T E RR E D I N N OT GI VI NG PL A I N TIFF H ER R I G H T T O R ED R ESS IN T H E C O U R TS. ¶ 4 7
. P ric e a ss e rts th a t sh e w a s d e n ied h e r rig h t to re d re ss in th e c o u rts. T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t a p la in tif

f’ s r ig h t t o r e d re s s is n o t a b s o lu te . See A r ceo v. T ol li ver , 94 9 S o. 2d 69 1 (M i ss. 2006)
. I n A r ceo , thi s C our ts t at ed: “T here i s no ab sol ute r i gh to f ac ce ss to t he co urt s. A l l that i s r equ i red i s a re a so n a b le ri g h t o f a c c e s s to th e c o u rt s – a r e a s o n a b le o p p o rt u n ity to b e h e a rd .” W a y ne v. Te nn . Val

le y Aut h. , 7 3 0 F .2 d 3 9 2 , 4 0 3 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 ) (c ited w ith approva l i n Townse nd

[ v. E state of G il

bert] , 616 So. 2d 333, 337 (M i ss. 1 9 9 3 )). W h ile th e rig h t u n d e r o u r sta te a n d fe d e ra l co n stitu tio n s to a c c e ss to o u r c o u rts i s a mat t erbeyond deba t e, t hi s ri ghti s coupl ed w i th re s pons i bi l i ty, i ncl udi ng the r es pons i bi l i ty t o com pl y w i th l egi s l at i ve ena ctm ent s , rul es , and j udi ci al deci s i ons . W hi l e the pl ai nt i f f i n t oday' s c as e had the cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o s eek r edr es s i n ours t at e court s f orthe unfor tunat e dea th of herdaught er , s he l i kew i se had the r esponsi bil i ty to com ply w i th the app l i cable rules and st atutes , i ncl udi ng s ect i on 15- 1- 36( 15)
. A ny di f f er entappr oach w ou l d r ender m eaningl ess any rul e or st atute s et t i ng t i m e l i m i t at i on s on li t i gan t s. I d . at697 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. A r t i cl e 3, Sect i on 24 o f t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on provides: A l l cou rt s shal l be o pen ; and every person f or an i njury do ne him i n his l and s, goods , pe r s on, orr eput at i on, s hal l ha ve r emedy by due c our s e of l aw , and r i ght and j us t i ce s hal l be admi ni s t er ed w i thouts al e, deni al , ordel ay. M i s s . C ons t . art . 3, § 24 ( 1890)
. H ow ever , notw i ths t andi ng thi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght , t he L e g isla tu re h a s c e rta in a u th o rity v ia s tatu to ry e n a c tm e n ts, a n d th is C o u rt p o ss e ss e s its i nher entrul e- m aki ng author i ty t o s etgui del i nes as t o how r edr es s m ay be s oughtthr ough our

### In h er Ap pellant’s C o mb inedRep ly an d R espo nse B rief for App ellants/C ross- 3 

### Appel le es , Pric e as se rt ed that theMTCA is unconstit uti onal , whic h prompt ed theAppel le es to f il e a Moti on to St

ri ke New Argum ent s on Appe al
. By singlej ustic e orde r, this motion was pass ed for

consi deration on t

he m erit s of

thi s a ppea l. We not e that

thi s Cour t ha s be en con sistent inho ldin g th at, especiallywh en co nstitution al qu estion s are raisedf or th e first time onapp eal, we w ill no t con sider th e merits of su chi ssu es. Sto ckstill v. S tate , 854 So. 2d 1017, 1023 (Mi ss . 2003). When the c onstit uti onal it y of a st at uteis ca ll ed into que stion, it shoul d be doneat

thetria l c ourt

le velso that the Attorney Ge neralmay be gi ven proper no tice pursu ant to Mississip pi Ru le of Civil Pro cedure 24 (d). Cockrel l v. Pearl River Vall ey Wa ter Dist. , 865 So. 2d 357, 360 ( Mis s. 2004) ( ci ting Ba rnes v. Singing River Hosp. Sys. , 73 3 S o. 2 d 1 99 , 20 2-0 3 (M iss. 19 99 )). See a lso Wil li ams v . Skelt on , 6 So. 3d 428, 429-30 (Mi ss . 2009) (c iting Ale

xander v. Daniel, 904 So. 2d172 , 183 (Miss. 200 5)). Ho wev er, it appe ar s that

Pri ce ’s is suera is ed in her Reply Bri ef

is me re ly an ext ens ion of theis suera is ed in he r originalAppel lant’ s Brie f f il ed wi th t

his Court . Thus, we aresati sf ie d that our dis cus si on of I ss ue I X ade quat ely addr es sestheis sueas ini ti al ly couc hed in Pric e’ s original Appellant’s Bri ef

fi le d with thi s Cour

t. Acc ordingly, we have this day e nte re d an order dismissin g as mo ot th e Ap pellees’ M otio n to Strik e newArg uments onAp peal. 31 court s . N o party m ay s i ton hi s orherr i ght s . “The l aw i s cr eat ed f orthe w at chf

ul and notf

or the negl i gent . ” H

ar r is on E nters . v. Trilogy Com m c’ns, I nc. , 8 18 S o. 2 d 10 88 , 1 09 5 (M i ss. 2 0 0 2 ). ¶48. A ddi t i onal l y, as thi s C our ts t at ed i n Car te rv. Mis s is s i pp iDepa r t

m e nt of Cor r e c ti ons , 8 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 7 , 1 1 9 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ): [ T ] he r emedy cl aus e, M i s s . C ons t . art . 3, § 24, does notconf l i ctw i th s over ei gn i mm un i ty, d oe s n otr e qu i r e e xc e pt i on s t o s ov e r e i gn i mm un i ty a nd d oe s not g ra n t an a b so lu te g u a ra n tee o f a trial. I d. at1194 ( ci t i ng G entr y v. W al lace , 6 06 S o. 2 d 1117 ( M i s s . 1992) ( overrul ed on other gr ounds by Jenkins v. P ens acola Heal th T r ust , I nc. , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d 9 2 3 , 9 2 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 )); s ee al s o R ob in son v. S tew art , 6 5 5 S o . 2 d 8 6 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). ¶ 4 9
. A c c o rd in g ly , this a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. 3

### 32

X. W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N GRANT I NG S UM M ARY J UDGM EN T I N I TS AUGUS T 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , ORDE R. ¶50
. P ri ce ap p ea ls th e tri al cou rt ’s A ug ust20, 200 7, fi n al ord er g ran ti n g su m m ary jud g m en t in fa v o r o f D r. C lark a n d C leve land M ed ical C li n ic, P L L C
. T h e tri al co u rt
u lti m a tely fo u n d th a t P ric e w a s u n a b le to s h o w a n y n e g lig ib le a c ts b y D r. C lar k (a n d th u s h is empl oyer ) f

r om O ct ober1, 2003, thr ough J anuary 31, 2004; ther ef or e, the tr i al courtgr ant ed
s um m ary j udgm entt o the def endant s bas ed on Pr i ce’ s expertdecl i ni ng t o of f eran opi ni on thatD r . C l ark had devi at ed f r om the s t andar d of ca r e atany poi ntaf t erSept ember9, 2003. W h il e P ri ce h as a p p ea led th e tri al co u rt ’s A u g u st 20 , 2 0 0 7 , O rde r G ran ti n g S u m m ary Ju d g m en t, sh e h as n o t bri efe d an y arg u m en ts sho w ing an y issue o f m aterial fac t th at D r. Cl a r k d e v i a t e d f

r o m th e s t a n d a r d o f

c a r e d u r i n g t h e t i me p e r i o d h e wa s n o ts u b j e c tt o M TCA im m u n ity
. Tupelo R edev elopm ent A gency v. G r ay Cor

p. , 972 So. 2d 495, 517 ( M i s s . 2007) (f ai l ure t o cit e authori ty in suppo rtof cl ai m s of errorprecl ud es appe l l at e revi ew of tho se cl ai m s ) ( ci t i ng G r ey v. G r ey , 6 3 8 S o . 2 d 4 8 8 , 4 9 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 )) ( o ther c it ati o n s o m itted)). ¶ 5 1
. T h u s , w e fi n d n o m e ri t in th e a p p e a l o f t h e A u g u s t 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , O rd e r. XI . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N N OT DI S M I S S I NG AL L C LA I M S AGAI NST DEFENDANTS S TEVEN CL ARK AND CLEVELAND M EDI CAL CLI NI C, PLL C, W I TH PREJ UDI CE. ¶52. D r. S teve n C lark an d C leve land M ed ical C li n ic, P L L C , cro ss-ap p ea l the tr ial co u rt ’s A ugus t28, 2006, or derdenyi ng thei rM ot i on t o A m end J udgm entand the M ar ch 19, 2007, A m ended O r derG r ant i ng Sum m ary J udgm enton the bas i s t hat t he tr i al courterr ed i n not

### 33

di s m i s s i ng al l cl ai m s agai ns tthem w i th pre j udi ce. A s pre vi ous l y di s cus s ed, t hi s C our tf ound th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt e rr o n e o u s ly d is m is s e d th e M T C A d e fe n d a n ts w ith p re ju d ic e . ¶53. T he def

endant s now ar gue thatt he t w o- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons pur s uantt o Sect i on 15- 1- 36, e ven w i th the s i xty- day t ol l i ng ef f ectof the not i ce- of

- cl ai m l ett er s , expi r ed on J une 8, 2006. I n es s ence , the def endant s agai n ar gue thatno t ol l i ng ef f ectf orthe purpos es of Sect i on 15- 1- 36 s houl d have be en gi ven t o the or i gi nal compl ai nt , becau se t he s i xty- day not i ce r equi r ementw as vi ol at ed. A s pr evi ous l y s t at ed, thi s C our thas f ound no pre cede ntt hat
s uppor t s thi s pr emi s e. D es pi t e the f actthatPr i ce f

i l ed hercl ai m onl y one da y af t ers endi ng hernot i ce- of

- cl ai m l ett er s , t he pr operre m edy w as di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce be caus e the cl ai m , al bei ti n vi ol at i on of the s i xty- day not i ce r equi r ement , di d serve t o t ol l the tw o- year
s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons unt i l the tr i al courtdi s m i s s ed the cl ai m s agai ns tD r . C l ark and C leve land M ed ical C li n ic w ith o u t prejud ice o n Ju ly 2 4 , 2 0 0 6
. W e fi n d no error o n the p art
o f th e trial c o u rt in d o in g so . A c c o rd in g ly , the d e fe n d a n ts’ c ro ss -a p p e a l is w ith o u t m e rit. XI I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N AL LOW I NG PRI CE TO FI LE A THI RD A M ENDED CO M PLAI NT. ¶54. D r s . A us t i n, W r i ght , and Sul l i van, and C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, L t d. , and C l evel and C l i ni c, P. A
. , cr os s - appea l the tr i al court ’ s J ul y 24, 2006, or dergr ant i ng Pr i ce l eave t o f i l e her th ird a m e n d e d c o m p lain t o n th e b a sis th a t itw a s im p ro v id e n tly g ra n ted . T h e trial c o u rt’s J u ly 24 , 20 06 , order cit es R ule 15(a) of the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of C i vil P rocedu re, w hich st at es, i n pert i nentpart , “l eave s hal l be f r eel y gi ven w hen j us t i ce s o r equi r es . ” T hus , l eave t o amend
w as pr oper l y gr ant ed, gi ven thatt o deny i tw oul d deny a pl ai nt i f f r ecour s e w her e an

### 34

ar gum entcoul d be m ade thatthe s ubs t i tut ed part i es i n the amended compl ai ntr el at ed bac k to th e fic tio n a l p a rties in th e o rig in a l co m p lain t. A c c o rd in g ly , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶5 5
. W e a ffi rm in p art an d rev erse in p art th e tr ial c o u rt ’s O rde r G ran ti n g P arti al S u m m ary J u d g m e n t e n te re d o n J u ly 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , a n d th e A m e n d e d O rd e r e n te re d o n M a rc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 . W e
a f f i r m th e d i s mi s s a l wi th o u tp r e j u d i c e o f Dr
. Cl a r k a n d Cl e v e l a n d M e d i c a l Cl i n i c , P LL C, f orw antof

s t atut ory not i ce of

cl ai m pur s uantt o Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15)
. W e r ever s e the tr i al
cou rt ’s di s m i s s al w i th pr ej udi ce of al l cl ai m s agai ns tthe M T C A def endant s , C l evel and M edi cal A l l i ance , L L P, and D r . S t even Cl ark f orhi s per i ods of

empl oym entw i th C l evel and M edi cal A l l i ance , L L P and C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, a s ervi ce of D el t a R egi onal M edi cal C ent er , bas ed on ourf

i ndi ng thatthe one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons s houl d ha ve bee n t ol l ed
u p o n th e filing o f th e A u g u st 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 , co m p lain t u n til su c h tim e a s th e trial c o u rt issu e d its
rul i ng i n J ul y 2006. ¶ 5 6
. W e a lso a ffirm th e A m e n d e d O rd e r in p a rt a s to th e d ism iss a l w ith p re ju d ice o f a ll
c la im s a g a in s t D e fe n d a n ts S a m u e l D u ff A u s tin , M .D .; B e n n ie B a rn e tte W ri g h t, J r., M .D .; E s t at e of B arr y St ephen S ull i van, M
. D
. ; C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, L t d. ; and C l evel and C l i ni c, P. A
. ; as s etf

or th i n the thi rd a m ended c om pl ai nt , beca us e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons for b o th the M T C A an d S ec ti o n 15 -1-3 6 ha d run prior t o P ri ce fi li n g the J u n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , thir d
am en d ed co m p lai n t. F inally, th is C o u rtaffirm s the tr ial co u rt ’s O rde r G ran ti n g S u m m ary J udgm entent er ed on A ugus t20, 2007, i n f avorof D r . St even C l ark a nd C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, PL L C , di s m i s s i ng al l r emai ni ng cl ai m s i n P r i ce’ s thi r d amended compl ai ntf or

### 35

conductthatoccurr ed bet w een O ct ober1, 2003, and J anuary 31, 2004, on the bas i s t hat P ri ce ’s ex p ert w as u n ab le t o estab li sh an y g en u ine issu e o f m aterial fac t th at D r. S teve n C lark had br eac hed the s t andar d of car e dur i ng thi s t i m e per i od. Pr i ce f ai l ed t o m ake a ny ar gum ent bef or e thi s C our tthatany i s s ue of m at er i al f

actexi s t ed underR ul e 56( c) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l P r ocedur e t hatD r . C l ark and C l evel and M edi cal C l i ni c, PL L C , had devi at ed f r om the st andar d of

car e dur i ng the t i m e per i od of O ct ober1, 2003, thr ough J anuary 31, 2004. ¶57. T he cr os s - appea l by D r . C l ark and C l eveland M edical C l i nic, P L L C , of the tr i al
court ’ s A ugus t28, 2006, orde rdenyi ng t hei rm ot i on t o am end j udgm entand the M ar ch 19, 2007, amended or dergr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm enti s w i thoutm er i ti n l i ghtof ourhol di ng that the tr i al courtdi d noterri n di s m i s s i ng the Sect i on 1 5-1- 36 cl ai m s w i thoutpr ej udi ce. A ccor di ngl y, w e af

f i r m the A ugus t2006 and M ar ch 2007 or der s i n partas t o thi s i s s ue. ¶5 8. A s t o the c r os s - a pp e a l b y D r s . Aus t i n, W r i gh t , and Sul l i van, C l evel and M edi cal C lin ic, L td., an d C leve land M ed ical P
. A
. of th e Ju ly 21 , 20 0 6 , O rde r G ran ti n g M o tio n to A m end, w e f

i nd thatthe tr i al c our t ’ s pe r m i t t i ng Pr i ce t o f i l e the thi r d amended compl ai ntw as notan abus e of

di s cr et i on i nas m uch as the tr i al court ’ s or dergr ant i ng l eave t o amend comport ed w i th R ul e 15( a) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vil Pr ocedur e. A ccor di ngl y, on
cro ss-ap p ea l w e a ffi rm the tri al co u rt ’s Ju ly 2 0 0 6 o rde r. ¶ 5 9
. ON DI RE CT AP P E AL : AF F I RMED I N P AR T AN D R E VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D I N P ART . ON CROS S - AP P EA L: AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR AND PI ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. DI CK I NSON, J . , CONC URS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY

### Ind eed, I al so am of th e op inio n th at “sub stantial co mplian ce” is a no n sequitur in 4 

### anycontext (o ne eith er co mplies, or on e d oesn ’t). I h ave, ho wev er, y ieldedto th e po pu list af fe ction for

the te rm , but

only a s i t a

ppli es to qua li tative r equire me nts . A be tt er (and more ac curat e) phra se , in my opini on, would be “the inf orm ation provi ded is subs tanti alenough to co mplywiththe statute’s requ irement.” 36 W ALLER, C. J . , CAR LS ON , P. J . , AND LAM AR, J . GR AVES, P . J . , DI S S EN TS W I TH S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y K I T C H E N S A N D C H A N D L E R , J J .; RANDOL P H, J . , J OI NS I N P ART. RANDOLP H, J . , CONCURS I N P ART AND DI S S EN TS I N P ART W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. DI CK I NS ON , J US T I CE , CO NC UR RI NG : ¶60
. A l tho u g h I ag ree w i th – and ful l y j oin – the m aj ori ty, I w ri t e separat el y t o ad dress Ju sti ce R an d o lph ’s co n ce rns w ith Ju sti ce C arlson ’s disp o sit ion o f Issue III
. ¶ 6 1
. Ju stic e R a n d o lp h c o rre c tly re c ites th e v iew s I e x p re s s e d o n b e h a lf o f th e C o u rt in W im ley v. R e id , 99 1 S o. 2d 13 5 (M i ss. 200 8), and I do not t od ay retreatf rom tho se vi ew s,
n o r do I fi n d in to d ay ’s m ajority an y v iew to the co n tr ary . Ind ee d , n eith er W im ley nort he
s t atut es ati s s ue i n thi s cas e ment i on the t ol l i ng of t he st atut e of

l i m i t at i ons , and I a m of the
o p in io n th a t Ju stic e C a rlso n ’s e x c e llen t an a ly sis o f th e iss u e is c o rre c t. ¶6 2
. T o b e c lea r, I c o n ti n u e to fi rm ly b eli ev e this C o u rt m u st ap p ly statu tes as they are
w ri tt en . A n d to tha t end , I r e a ffirm m y su p p o rtfor the p rop o sit ion that – for quant i tat i ve
s t atut ory m andat es – t he t erm “s ubs t ant i al compl i ance ” i s a non s equi tur , empl oyed 4 pr i m ar i l y by tw o w el l
- m eani ng but( i n my vi ew ) mi s gui ded s chool s of j udi ci al phi l os ophy: thos e w ho m i s t akenl y bel i eve they ca n r ead the mi nd of the L egi s l atur e ( as i f

i tha d onl y one
m i nd) ; and thos e w ho i nt erpr ets t atut es as they thi nk they s hould have been w r i t t en.

### 37

¶63. I ti s notm y i nt entt o cr i t i ci ze those w ho h old t he vi ew thata s t atut e’ s per cei ved p u rp o s e ma y tru mp th e s t a tu t e ’ s p r e c i s e l a n g u a g e – I j u s td i s a g r e e wi th th e m. Th u s , i n my
v iew , w h e re a sta tu te s p e c ifica lly a n d u n a m b ig u o u sly d e c lar e s th a t a c laim a n t m u st w a it ninety d ays t o fi l e sui t(a quan t i t at i ve requ i rem ent) , the claim ant m ustw ai tninety d ays,
r egar dl es s of

w hetherthe as s um ed pu rposes o f th e sta tu te m a y h a v e b e e n e a rlier m e t. ¶64. B ut s tr i ct com pli ance w i t h s t atut ory t i m e l i m i t s does not r equi r e that w e r ead i nt o a
s t atut e pr ovi s i ons w hi ch ar e notther e. I am convi nced thatsui t s fi l ed pr i ort o the expi r at i on of the s t atut ory not i ce pe r i ods s houl d be di s m i s s ed, butI am pr epar ed t o go no further
. T hat i s t o say, I w i l l notagr ee t o re ad i nt o t he M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct , orthe pr e- s ui tnot i ce
r equi r ementof

Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) , a pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tt ol l i ng the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

or the per i od of

t i m e the s ui tw as pendi ng, notw i ths t andi ng the pl ai nt i f f’ s f ai l ur e t o gi ve pr oper
n o tice . If th e L e g isla tu re w ish e s to e lim in a te to lli n g o f th e s tatu te o f lim itatio n s, it is f re e to
en ac t a statute of rep o se. I see n o reaso n w h atso ev er, u n d er th e fac ts o f th is c a se , to d e p art fr om the g eneral rul e t hat the fi l i ng of a com plai nt t oll s the st atute of l i m i t at i on s. W AL L E R, C. J . , CA RL S ON , P . J . , AN D L AMAR , J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON
. GR AV E S , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 6 5
. In to d a y ’s o p in io n , th e m a jo rity o f th is C o u rt fi n d s th a t P ric e fa iled to su b sta n tially compl y w i th the s t atut ory r equi r ement s of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 1 1-46- 11( 1)
- ( 2) ( R ev. 2002) , w hi ch i s partof the M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct( M T C A ), an d M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S ec ti o n 1 5 -1-3 6 (15 ) (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ). I h av e p rev iou sly s tat ed m y d isag ree m en t w ith this C o u rt ’s i ns i s t ence on s tr i ct l y appl yi ng the r equi r ement s s etout i n S ect i ons 11- 46- 11( 1) and 15- 1-

### 38

3 6 (1 5 ). See Bunton v. King , 99 5 S o. 2d 69 4, 69 7-98 (M i ss. 20 08 ) ( G raves, J. , dis senti n g ); A r ceo v. T

ol li ver , 949 So. 2d 691, 698- 704 ( M i s s . 2006) ( G r aves , J
. , di s s ent i ng)
. I n Fair ley
v. G eo rg e C o u n ty , 871 So. 2d 713, 718- 28 ( M i s s . 2004) ( E as l ey, J
. , concurr i ng) , I j oi ned J us t i ce Eas l ey’ s opi ni on, i n w hi ch he c oncurr ed i n r es ul tonl y, f i ndi ng thatthe pl ai nt i f

f had
s ubs t ant i al l y compl i ed w i th Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 2) , though the maj or i ty hel d thats he had not compl i ed. I n l i ghtof

the f act s of thi s c as e, the l egal pr ece dent , a nd the r at i onal e behi nd t he statu tory req u ir em en ts, I am co m p ell ed to restate m y d isag ree m en t w ith th is C o u rt ’s ap p li ca ti o n o f th e re q u ir em en ts set ou t i n S ec ti o n s 1 1 -46 -11 (1)-(2) a n d 1 5 -1-3 6 (15 ). I. ¶66. I n thi s c as e, the m aj or i ty r ecogni zes thatthi s C our thel d i n L ee v. Mem or ial Hos pital at G u l fport , 9 9 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 6 6 -6 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ), th a t o n ly su b sta n tial c o m p lia n c e is
r equi r ed w i th r es pectt o the r equi r ement s s etoutin Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 2)
. M aj
. O p. ¶ 20. H o w e v e r, th e m a

jo rity fin d s th a t th e n o tice s o f c laim se n t b y N in a P ric e (P ric e ) fa iled to
su b sta n tially c o m p ly w ith S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (2 ). M a j. O p . ¶ 2 2
. B e c a u se the n o tice s o f c laim d o su b sta n tially c o m p ly w ith th e re q u ire m e n ts in S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (2 ), I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶6 7. Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 2) r e qu i r e s tha ta n ot i c e o f cl ai m s etouts even c at egor i es of i nf or m at i on: 1) t he ci r cumst ance s w hi ch br oughtaboutthe i nj ury; 2) the ext entof the i nj ur y; 3) the t i m e and pl ace the i nj ury occurr ed; 4) the names of a l l pe r s ons know n t o be i nvol ved; 5) the amountof

m oney damages s ought ; 6) the r es i dence of the per s on m aki ng t he cl ai m at the t i m e of

the i nj ury; and 7) the r es i dence of the per s on m aki ng the cl ai m atthe t i m e the
n o ti ce is f

il ed
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -11 (2).

### 39

¶68. T he not i ces of cl ai m at i s s ue, w hi ch w er e dat ed A ugus t 30, 2004, and w er e del i ver ed vi a ce r t i f i ed mai l , s t at ed: I a m w riting th is le tter a s a n o ffic ial n o tice th a t a f o rm a l co m p lain t w ill be f i l ed agai nstyou on behal f of ourcl i ent , A l bertB ruce Pr i ce, J r . , w ho has s uf f e r e d i nj ur i e s a nd s us t a i ne d d a mage s a s a r e s ul tof the ne gl i ge ntmedi cal tre a tm e n t th a t h e re c e iv e d a t y o u r fa c ili ty lo c a ted in C lev e lan d , M iss iss ip p i. M r. P ric e h a d b e e n a p a tie n t o f y o u rs a n d y o u r p re d e c e ss o rs f o r w e ll o v e r tw e n ty y e a rs. B e g in n in g in 2 0 0 1 , M r. P ric e b e g a n w e a k e n in g e sp e c ially i n hi s l ow erextr emi t i es . H i s heal th cont i nual l y w or s ened overt he nextthr ee year s and al though he w as part aki ng i n phys i cal ther apy and oc cupat i onal th e ra p y , h e w a s n o t im p ro v in g . H e s lo w ly w e n t fro m lo sin g h is b a lan c e , to n e e d in g a c a n e , to n e e d in g a w a lk e r, to n e e d in g a w h e e lch a ir , to b a sic a lly bei ng bed bound. A tno t i m e w as an M R I orC T s can pe r f or m ed on M r . Pr i ce t o d e t e r mi n e a n y p o t e n t i a l n e u r o l o g i c a l p r o b l e ms . I n th e e n d wh e n th e M RI and/ orC T s can w er e exe cut ed, a r atherl ar ge pi tui t ary tum orw hi ch had be en g ro w in g fo r se v e ra l y e a rs w a s d isc o v e re d . A ft e r c o n su lti n g w ith sp e c ialists f r om s ever al s t at es , t he fami l y and M r . Pr i ce l earned thatnotonl y w as the tum ori noper abl e butthatr adi at i on w as notan opti on . L ess than tw o w eeks af t erhi s l as tcons ul t at i on w i th a ne ur ol ogi s tc oncerni ng hi s he al th, M r . Pr i ce di ed on oraboutA ugus t14, 2004. M r . Pr i ce’ s f

ami l y has been f

or ced t o al t erthei rl i f

es tyle due t o the d e ter io ra tio n o f h is h e a lth a n d h is s u b se q u e n t d e a th . M r. P ric e h a d to lim it h is form er d ail y a cti v it ies. D u e to h is ph y sical co n d it ion ca u sed b y the p itu it ary tum or , M r . Pr i ce c oul d no l ongerengage i n hi s us ual day- t o- day ac t i vi t i es once exhi bi t ed suc h as: w al ki ng, pl ayi ng w i th hi s gr andchi l dr en, dr i vi ng, w or ki ng on hi s car s and ent ert ai ni ng cr ow ds of peopl e and hi s f ami l y w i th hi s t al entof p lay in g th e k e y b o a rd , sin g in g a n d ju st p lain ro c k in ’ n ’ ro lli n ’. P rio r to h is h ea lth p rob lem s ca u sed b y the u n d iagn o sed tum o r, M r. P ri ce w as v ery i nvol ved i n t he comm uni ty and w i th hi s f ami l y. Fort he f or egoi ng re as ons , w e w i l l be fi l i ng a com pl ai nton behal f of our cl i entf orpas t , pr es entand f

utur e medi cal expens es , pai n a nd s uf f er i ng, m ent al a n d e m o tio n a l d istre ss , an d lo ss o f so c iety . H o w e v e r, if y o u a re w ill in g to dis cuss the set t l em ent of this m at t er pri or t o the i nit i at i on of a l aw sui t , pleas e do nothes i t at e t o cont actus i n a t i m el y manner . I f w e do nothearf

r om you, w e w ill p ro c e e d b y filing a c o m p lain t ag a in st y o u o n b e h a lf o f o u r c lien t.

### 40

¶6 9
. T h e m a

jo rity co n clud es that the n o ti ce s o f claim fail ed to su b stan ti all y co m p ly w ith Sect i on 11-46- 11( 2)
. M aj
. O p. ¶ 22. I di s agr ee w i th t hi s concl us i on becaus e the not i ces of cl ai m pr ovi ded s uf

f i ci entnot i ce t o the def

endant s of

the cl ai m an d they pr ovi ded al l s even
ca tego ri es o f i n form ati o n req u ir ed p u rsua n t t o S ec ti o n 1 1 -46 -11 (2). T h e Circum stan ces W

h i ch B rou gh t

A bo u t th e Injury ¶7 0
. T h e n o ti ce s o f claim clea rl y d esc ri b ed the circu m stan ce s w h ich b rou g h t ab o u t A lbert P ri ce’s i njury. T he fi rs ts entence of the n oti ces of cl ai m st at ed thathe suff ered i njur i es as a
r es ul tof negl i gentm edi cal tr eatm entatthe defend ant s ’ m edi cal f aci l i t i es . T he not i ces of cl ai m f ur therpoi nt ed outthatA l bertPr i ce ha d been a pat i entof the def endant s f ormore t han tw enty year s and that , des pi t e the f actthathi s condi t i on began w or s eni ng i n 2001, “[ a] tno t i m e w as an M R I orCT s can per f or m ed on M r . Pr i ce t o det erm i ne any pot ent i al neur ol ogi cal pr obl ems. ” A s a cons equence , the not i ces s t at ed, A l bertPr i ce’ s tum orw as notdi s cover ed unt i l i tw as i noper abl e and unr es pons i ve t o r adi at i on ther apy. T hus , the not i ces of cl ai m m et the f i r s tr equi r ements etouti n Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 2) by adequa t el y des cr i bi ng t he ci r cumst ance s w hi ch br oughtaboutthe i nj ury. T h e E xtent of t h e Injury ¶71. A s f

orthe ext entof

the i nj ury, the not i ces of cl ai m m ade abu nd antl y cl earthat the cl ai m w as thatA l bertPr i ce ha d s uf f er ed f r om the det er i or at i on of h i s phys i cal condi t i on,
w hi ch ul t i m at el y l ed t o his d eat h. T he not i ces des cr i bed the pr ogr es s i on of hi s l os s of
m o b il ity : “[ h ] e slo w ly w en t f rom losing his ba lanc e, t o n ee d ing a c an e, t o n ee d ing a w alke r, t o needi ng a w heel chai r , t o bas i cal l y bei ng bed bound. ” The t hi r d par agr aph of the noti ces

### 41

o f claim p rov ided furthe r de tai ls r eg ard ing the s p ec ific w ay s in w h ich A lbert P ri ce ’s
w or s eni ng phys i cal c ondi t i on c aus ed hi m i nj ury. T her ef or e, the s econd cat ego ry of i n f o r ma t i o n s e to u ti n S e c t i o n 1 1
- 4 6
- 1 1 ( 2 ) wa s a l s o p r o v i d e d i n th e n o t i c e s o f c l a i m. T he T im e and P lace t

he I nj ury O ccur r ed ¶7 2. T he not i ces of cl ai m spec i f i cal l y st at ed t hatA l be r tPr i c e “ s uf f e r e d i nj ur i es and
s us t ai ned damages as a r es ul tof the negl i gen tm edica l tr eatm entthathe r ece i ved atyour f aci l i t y l ocat ed i n C l eve land, Mis s is s i ppi . ” ( E m phas i s a dded. ) T hus , ther e i s no ques t i on t hat t he cl ai m w a s tha tthe i nj ury o c c urr e d a tthe de f e nd a nt s ’ medi c a l f

a c i l i t i e s i n Cl e ve l and, M i s s i s s i ppi
. T he not i ces of cl ai m a l s o s t at ed thatA l bertBruc e Pr i ce, J r . w as a pa t i enta tthe def endant s ’ m edi cal f

aci l i t i es f orm or e than tw enty year s . Pr i ce’ s pr i m ary al l egat i on w as t hat th e d e fe n d a n ts s h o u ld h a v e d iag n o se d th e p itu itary tu m o r th a t c a u se d A lb e rt P ric e ’s d e a th bef or e the tum orbeca m e i no per abl e and unr es pons i ve t o r adi at i on ther apy. T he not i ces of
c l a i m c l e a r l y s t a t e d th a tth e tu mo r“ h a d b e e n g r o wi n g f o rs e v e r a l y e a r s . ” Th e r e f o r e , th e t i me the in jury o cc u rred sp an n ed the p eriod o f t im e fro m the fo rm ati o n o f the tum o r un ti l A lbert P ric e ’s d e a th . T h e n o tice s o f c laim c o n tain e d su ffic ien t in fo rm a tio n fo r th e d e fe n d a n ts to d raw this co m m o n -sen se c o n clus ion
. In ad d it ion , the n o ti ce s also stat ed that A lbert P ri ce ’s heal th began t o det er i or at e i n 2001. T hus , contr ary t o the m aj or i ty’ s c oncl us i on, the not i ces of cl ai m s uf

f i ci ent l y i dent i f

i ed the t i m e the i nj ury occurr ed. M aj
. O p. ¶ 21. T he N am es of A l l P ers ons Kn ow n to be I nvolved ¶ 7 3
. S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (2 ) o n ly r e q u ire s th a t a n o tice o f c laim sp e c ify “ th e n a m e s o f a ll persons know n to b e in v o lv e d .” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h is

### 42

C our tunder s cor ed i n L ee that onl y “all persons know n t o be i nvol ved” ne ed t o be i dent i f i ed in a n o tic e o f c la im
. L ee , 999 So. 2d at1267. I f Pr i ce di d notknow the i dent i ty of al l per s ons in v o lv e d , the n S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (2 ) d id n o t req u ire tha t sh e p ro v id e th e ir n a m e s s in c e sh e d id
n o t k n o w a ll p e rs o n s w h o w e re in v o lv e d
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11-46- 11( 2)
. I not e thatt he d e fe n d a n ts e a sily c o u ld h a v e c o n su lted A lb e rt P ric e ’s m e d ica l file a n d th e ir re c o rd s to d e ter m in e w h ich o f its e m p lo y e e s w e re in v o lv e d in h is tre a tm e n t. T h e re fo re , I d isa g re e w ith the m ajority ’s co n clus ion that P ri ce fail ed to co m p ly w ith S ec ti o n 11 -46 -11 (2) b ec au se “ there al s o w as no m ent i on of

the names of

the per s ons i nvol ved. ” M aj
. O p. ¶ 21. The Am ount

of Mone y D am ag e s Soug ht ¶ 7 4
. A lth o u g h the n o tice s o f cla im d id n o t sp e c ify the am o u n t of m o n e y d a m a g e s s o u g h t, they did inc lud e a li st o f th e typ es o f dam ag es P ri ce sou g h t. P resu m ab ly , the L eg isl ature inclu d ed this requi rem ent i n S ect i on 11 -46-11(2) s o thatdefend ants w ou l d h ave m ore i nf or m at i on r egar di ng t he natur e of t he cl ai m i n orde rt o gi ve them a gener al s ens e of w hether
s ett l ementi s des i r abl e, and i f s o, t he ra nge of

pot ent i al s ett l ementamount s . L i s t i ng t he
var i ous types of

damages cl ai m ed ade quat el y s er ves thi s purpos e. Si nce Pr i ce pr ovi ded a d etail ed li st of the ty p e s o f d am ag es so u g h t, sh e su b stan ti all y co m p li ed w ith this st atuto ry
re q u ire m e n t. T h e re fo re , I d isa g re e w ith th e m a jo rity ’s f in d in g th a t th e n o tice s o f c laim d id nots at i s f y thi s r equi r ements etouti n Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 2)
. M aj
. O p. ¶ 21. ¶75. I am com pel l ed t o add, how ever , thatI f i nd the mer e exi s t ence of thi s r equi r ement , and thi s C our t ’ s enf

or cementof

i t , t o be hi ghl y pr obl emat i c. R equi r i ng c l ai m ant s t o i ndi cat e the amount of

damages s oughti n t hei rnot i ce of cl ai m s erves no purpos e otherthan t o cr eat e yet

### 43

anotherhur dl e i n a n ef

f or tt o thw artvi abl e cl ai m s agai ns tgovernm ent al ent i t i es and medi cal pr ovi der s . M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l P rocedu re 8( a) does notr equi r e pl ai nt i f f s t o s peci f

y a
m onet ary amount of

damages i n a pl eadi ng s ett i ng f or th a c l ai m f

orr el i ef a nd onl y r equi r es th a t a p lain tiff in c lu d e “ a d e m a n d fo r ju d g m e n t fo r th e re lie f to w h ich h e d e e m s h im se lf
en ti tl ed
. ” M iss. R
. C iv. P. 8(a )(2). M o re p erti n e n t to th is c a se is th e fa ct th at a p lai n ti ff pur s ui ng a negl i gence cl ai m agai ns tm edi cal pr ovi der s i s s t atut or i l y pr ohibi t ed f r om
s peci f yi ng a damages amount i n hi s orhercompl ai ntorcount er cl ai m . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1 -5 9 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -5 9 sta tes , in r e lev a n t p a rt: In a n y a c tio n at law ag a in st a li c e n s e d p h y sic ian , o ste o p a th , d e n tist, ho sp ital, nur s e, pharm aci s t , podi atr i s t , opt om etr i s tor chi r opr act ort o r ecove rdamages b a s e d u p o n a p ro fe s s io n a l n e g lig e n c e th e o ry , th e c o m p la in t o r c o u n ter c la im s hal lnotspec i

f y the am ountof

dam ages clai m ed , buts hal l onl y s t at e thatthe damages cl ai m ed ar e w i thi n the j ur i s di ct i onal l i m i t s of the courtt o w hi ch the p le a d in g s a re a d d re s s e d
. . . . M i ss. C od e A nn . § 1 1-1-59 (em ph asi s a d d ed ). T hu s, i nd i vidual s pursui ng cl ai m s agai nst pr ovi der s f

orm edi cal n egli gen ce a r e noteven pe r m i t t ed t o s peci f y the amountof

m oney damages s oughti n t hei rcompl ai ntorcount er cl ai m , butar e r equi r ed t o spec i f y t he am ountof
m oney damages s oughti n t hei rnot i ce of cl ai m . T hi s i s abs ur d. T her e i s no r at i onal expl anat i on f

orw hy cl aim an t

s m us ts peci f

y a dam ages am ounti n thei rnot i ce of cl ai m w hen th e y a r e n o tp e r mi t t e d , mu c h l e s s r e q u i r e d , t o d o s o i n th e i rf o r ma l c o mp l a i n to rc o u n t e r c l a i m. ¶ 7 6
. F u rt h e rm o re , th e e x a c t a m o u n t o f m o n e y d a m a g e s s o u g h t m a y b e v e ry d iffic u lt to
c a lcu late a n d m a y , in f a c t, req u ire c o n su ltatio n w ith e x p e rts. T h u s, it ca n b e e x tre m e ly b u r d e n s o me f

o rc l a i ma n t s t o s p e c i f

y a n a mo u n to f

d a ma g e s i n th e i rn o t i c e o f c l a i m –

### 44

es peci al l y gi ven the f

actthatthey nee d notdet erm i ne a s peci f i c damages am ountt o i ncl ude i n thei rc om pl ai ntorcount er cl ai m . I n the i nst antcas e, Pr i ce i s s eeki ng damages f or , i nt eral i a, pai n and s uf

f er i ng, m ent al and emot i onal di s tr es s , and l oss of soci et y. I tw oul d have be en extr aordi nari l y dif

fi cultfor her t o determ i ne a spe ci fi c am ou nt of m on ey d am ages for these types of damages i n he rnot i ces of c l ai m , w hi ch w er e r equi r ed t o be s entbef or e l i t i gat i on w as
comm ence d, a nd w hi ch w er e s entonl y appr oxi m at el y tw o w eeks af t erherhus band’ s death. T h e R e s ide n c e o

f th e P e rs o n Ma k in gth e Cla im a t t h e T ime o f th e I n j u r y a n d a t th e T ime t he N oti ce i s Filed ¶7 7. T he m aj or i ty f

i nd s tha t the no t i c e s of c l a i m di d no t i nc l ud e the c l a i mant ’ s r es i dence atthe t i m e of

the i nj ury ora tthe t i m e the not i ce i s f i l ed. M aj
. O p. ¶ 21. In al l l i kel i hood, S e c t i o n 1 1
- 4 6
- 1 1 ( 2 ) r e q u i r e s th a ta n o t i c e o f c l a i m i n c l u d e th e c l a i ma n t ’ s a d d r e s s a tth e t i me of the i nj ury i s s o thatdef endant s can i dent i f

y the cl ai m ant . I n thi s case, A l bertPr i ce ha d been a pat i entatt he def endant s ’ fa ci l i t i es form or e t han t w enty year s . A l s o, hi s f ul l name – A l bertB ruce Pr i ce, J r . – w as provi ded i n bol d- f ace t ype i n t he subj ectl i ne of the not i ces of cl ai m and i n the f

i r s ts ent ence of

the s ubs t ance of

the not i ces . H i s f

ul l name w as m or e than adeq uate i n assi st i ng the d efendan t s i n i den t i fyi ng hi m . F urtherm ore, A l bertP ri ce’s add res s atthe t i m e of

i nj ury w as m os tl i kel y pr ovi ded t o the def endants atl eas tonce dur i ng t he tw enty- year peri od du ri ng w hich they treat ed him and w as r eadil y av ai l able i n the defendan t s’
r ecor ds
. T he def

endant s w er e puton s uf

f i ci entnot i ce of

w hi ch of thei rpat i ent s w as pur s ui ng th i s c l a i m a g a i n s tth e m.

### Rule4.2 s tate s: “In repre se nting a c li ent , a lawyer sha llnot communi cateabout the 5 

### subj ec t of therepre se ntati on with a party thelawyer kn ows to berepre se nte d by another lawyer in t he m atte r, unle ss thelawyer has thecons ent

of the other

lawye r or

is authori ze d bylaw to do so.” M iss. R. P ro f’l C o n d u c t 

### 4.2. 45 ¶ 7 8
. As f

o rt h e r e q u i r e me n tt h a ta n o t i c e o f c l a i m i n c l u d e th e c l a i ma n t ’ s a d d r e s s a tth e t i me the not i ce i s f

i l ed, thi s i nf

or m at i on i s m os tl i kel y re qui r ed so thatdef endant s can cont actthe
c laim a n t in a n e ffo rt to in v e stig a te o r se ttl e th e c la im . H e re , P ric e w a s m a k in g a c laim thro u g h co u n sel, w h o se o ffi ce ad d ress, office p h o n e n u m b er, an d o ffi ce w eb sit e w ere p ro v id e d in th e n o tice s o f c laim . N o tab ly , itw o u ld h a v e b e e n a v io latio n o f M iss iss ip p i R u le
o f P ro fe ss io n a l C o n d u c t 4 .2 fo r a law y e r re p re se n tin g a d e fe n d a n t to a tte m p t t o c o n tac t a 5
c la im a n t d ir e c tly w h e n it is k n o w n th a t th e c la im a n t is re p re s e n te d b y c o u n s e l. See M i s s . R. P ro f’ l C o n d u c t 4 .2 . A c c o rd in g ly , th e n o tic e s o f c la im in v ite d th e d e fe n d a n ts to “ c o n ta c t u s ,”
c l e a r l y r e f

e r r i n g t o c o u n s e l , wh o s e s i g n a tu r e f o l l o we d s h o r t l y th e r e a f t e r , a n d h i s l a w f

i r m. T h e n o tice s o f c laim p ro v id e d s u ff icie n t in fo rm a tio n to th e d e fe n d a n ts s u c h th a t th e y c o u ld h a v e i d e n t i f

i e d Al b e r tP r i c e a n d c o n t a c t e d P r i c e ’ s c o u n s e l r e g a r d i n g th e c l a i m. ¶7 9. Thi s c on c l us i on i s c on s i s t e ntwi th thi s Court ’ s pr i orcas e l aw . I n T hornburg v. Magnolia R egional

Heal th Center , 741 So. 2d 220, 223 ( M i s s . 1999) , thi s C our taddr es s ed th e d e fe n d a n t’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e p lain tiff’s n o tic e o f c laim w a s d e fic ien t fo r fa ilu re to pr ovi de heraddr es s . T hi s C our ts t at ed that notw i ths t andi ng T hornbur g’ s f ai l ur e t o i nclude heraddr es s i n herl ett er , her not i ce l ett erneverthel es s i nf or m ed M agnol i a of

the s ubs t ance of

hercl ai m and pr ov i de d M a gn ol i a w i th s uf f i c i e nti nf

ormat i on t o c on du c ta pr ope r i nves t i gat i on. . . . [ T ] he l ett erpr ovi ded the addr es s of the att orney handl i ng the

### 46

cl ai m , and M agnol i a coul d have pr es um abl y obt ai ned the i nf or m at i on r egar di ng T hornbur g’ s r es i dence by conduct i ng a br i ef i nves t i gat i on. I d. I n P o w e ll v. City o

f P a sc ag o u la , 752 So. 2d 999, 1005 ( M i s s . 1999) , thi s C our tf ound t hat the pl ai nt i f

f had s ubs t a nt i a l l y compl i ed w i th Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 2) des pi t e herf ai l ur e t o i ncl ude h e r a d d re ss , sta tin g th a t:

T h e C ity su ffe re d n o a c tu a l p re ju d ice a s a re su lt o f P o w e ll’s fa ilu re to i n c l u d e h e ro wn a d d r e s s , wh e r e s h e wa s r e p r e s e n t e d b y a n a t t o rn e y a tth e t i me and hi s addr es s w as i ncl uded. Fur therm or e, the C i ty w as on actual not i ce of Pow el l ’ s addr es s on the dat e of the i nci dent , i n thatthe pol i ce o ff i cerw ho r eport ed t he i nci denti ncl uded Pow el l ’ s addr es s on the U ni f or m A cci dent R e p o rt. B e c a u se P o w e ll’s N o tice b o re th e a d d re ss o f h e r a tto rn e y , w e fin d th is t o be s ubs t ant i al compl i ance w i th the s t atut e. ¶80. A s t his C our tr ecogni zed i n both T h orn bu rgand P o w e ll , as a p rac ti ca l m a tter, it i s inco n seq u en ti al th at a c lai m an t f ail ed to inc lud e h is or h er re side n ce a t th e ti m e o f th e inju ry and the t i m e the not i ce i s f i l ed w hen the def

endant s can e as i l y acc es s the cl ai m ant ’ s r es i dence atthe t i m e of

the i nj ury and ca n cont actthe cl ai m ant ’ s at t orney, w hos e cont acti nf or m at i on i s pr ovi ded. ¶81. I n the i ns t antcas e, i ti s evi dentthatPr i ce pr ovi ded al l s even c at egor i es of i nf or m at i on. T he i nf or m at i on pr ovided i n the not i ce w as s uf f i ci entt o m eetthe purpos e of the s t atut e by enabl i ng the def

endant s t o i nves t i gat e and eva l uat e Pr i ce’ s cl ai m . T her ef or e, I w oul d f

i nd t hat P ric e ’s n o tice s o f c laim su b sta n tially c o m p lie d w ith S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (2 ). I n o te th a t th is C our tf ound s ubs t ant i al compl i ance i n R e a v e s ex re l. R o u se v. R a n da ll , 729 So. 2 d 1237, 1 2 4 0 ( M iss . 1 9 9 9 ), w h e re th e n o tice o f c laim se n t to th e g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity in c lu d e d o n ly the per s ons i nvol ved i n the ac ci dent , w hen the ac ci dentocc urr e d, w he r e the ac ci dentoccurr ed,

### 47

and w hatvehi cl es w er e i nvol ved. I n Ca rrv. T o w n o f S h u b u ta , 733 So
. 2d 26 1, 26 3 (M i ss. 1999) , thi s C our ts t at ed:

T he purpos e of

t he not i ce s t atut e bei ng t o advi s e t he ci ty of the ac ci dent s o th a t it m a y p ro m p tly in v e s tig a te th e s u rr o u n d in g c ir c u m s ta n c e s , w e s ee no need to endors e a pol i cy whi ch r ender s the stat ut e a tr ap f

orthe unw ar

y w h ere s uch purpos e has i n f

actbeen s at i s f

i ed. T hus , a not i ce i s s uf

f i ci enti f i tsubs t ant i al l y com pl i es w i th t he cont ent r equi r ement s of

t he s t atut e. W hatc ons t i tut es s ubs t ant i al c om pl i ance , w hi l e not a q u e stio n o f fa c t b u t on e o f law , is a fa c t-se n sitiv e d e ter m in a tio n . In g e n e ra l, a not i ce thati s f

i l ed w i thi n the [ r equi s i t e] per i od, i nform s the muni ci pal i ty of the cl ai m ant ’ s i nt entt o m ake a cl ai m and contai ns s uf f i ci ent i nf or m at i on w hi ch re a so n a b le [

sic ] a ffo rd s th e m u n icip a lit

y a n o p p o r tu n ity to p r o m

p tly in v e stig a te th e c la i m sati sfi es th e p u rpo se o f th e statute a n d w il l be h eld to su b stan ti ally c o m p ly w ith it. I d. at263 ( emphasi s added)
. T hi s C our tf ur therst at ed t hat , “[ e] ven though thi s C our tnow f i nds s ubs t ant i al compl i ance t o be s uf f i ci ent , w e s tr es s thats ubs t ant i al compl i ance i s notthe
s ame as , nora s ubs t i tut e f ornon- compl i ance . ” I

d. at265. T hi s Courtha s s i nce unf ai r l y and
unr eas onabl y c i t e d tha ts t a t e menta s s up po rtf orf i nd i ng noncompl i ance w her e cl ai m ant s have, in fa c t, s u b s ta n tia lly c o m p lie d
. See, e. g. , P arker v. H arrison Cou n t

y B d. of Su

pervisors , 987 S o . 2 d 4 3 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ); Fa irle y v. G e o rg e Co u n ty , 8 7 1 S o . 2 d 7 1 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); H ar r is v. Mis s . V al ley State U

ni v. , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 9 7 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶82
. I w ri te t od ay t o den ou nce the m anipul at i on of “subst anti al com pli ance” i nto a m ere j udi ci al i l l us i on and t o i m pl or e the appl i cat i on of the s t atut e as i nt ended – t o pr ovi de not i ce of a cl ai m – and nott o prohi bi tt he pur s ui tof cl ai m s . B as ed on t he s t atut ory r equi r ement s and the appl i cabl e ca s el aw , I w oul d f i nd thatPri ce sub st ant i al l y compl i ed w i th the not i ce req u ir em en ts set ou t i n S ec ti o n 1 1 -46 -11 (2).

### Although Se ction 11- 46-11 wa s revi se d in 1999, thelanguagere garding t he ninety- 6 

### day- notic e r equire me nt rem ains una lt er ed f rom thepre -1999 ve rs ion of

Sec ti on 11-46- 11. See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -11 (R ev . 1 9 9 8 ). 

### 48 II. ¶83. I al s o w r i t e t o e xpr es s my di s agr eementw i th the maj or i ty’ s r el i ance on U ni vers it y of Mis s is s i pp iMe dic al

Cente rv. Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d 815 ( M i s s . 2006) , and P ita lo v. GP CHGP , I nc. , 933 So. 2d 927 ( M i s s . 2006), fort he pr opos i t i on t hatM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i ons 11- 46- 11( 1) and 15- 1- 36( 15) s houl d be s tr i ct l y cons trued and appl i ed. M aj
. O p. ¶¶ 16- 19. The Nine t

y -D ay -N oti c e Requir e m e nt ¶84. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 1) , w hi c h i s pa rtof the M i s s i s s i pp i T or tC l ai m s A ct (M T C A ), sta tes , in r e lev a n t p a rt: A f t eral l pr ocedur es w i thi n a governm ent al ent i ty have been ex haust ed, any per s on havi ng a cl ai m f ori nj ury ar i s i ng underthe pr ovi s i ons of thi s chapt er agai ns ta governm ent al ent i ty ori t s empl oyee s hal l pr ocee d as he mi ghti n any a c tio n a t law o r in e q u ity ; p ro v id e d , h o w e v e r, th a t n in e ty ( 9 0 ) d a y s p rio r to m ai nt ai ni ng an ac t i on t her eon, s uch per s on shal l fi l e a not i ce of cl ai m w i th the chi ef exec ut i ve of

f i cerof the governm ent al ent i ty. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ). T h u s, S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ) re q u ire s th a t, w h e n su in g a sta te ent i ty, a pl ai nt i f

f m us tf i l e a not i ce of

cl ai m w i th the chi ef

exec ut i ve of

f i cerof t he go vernm ental enti ty n i nety day s pri or t o m ai ntai ning an a ct i on on a cl ai m fori njury. M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -11 (1). T h is C o u rth as lo n g ap p li ed a su b stan ti al-co m p li an ce stan d ard 6
w h e n re v ie w in g c a s e s in v o lv in g th e n in e ty -d a y -n o ti c e re q u ir e m e n t. See, e. g. , W r i ght v. Q ues nel , 8 7 6 S o . 2 d 3 6 2 , 3 6 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); D avis v. Hoss , 86 9 S o. 2d 39 7, 40 1-02 (M i ss. 2 0 0 4 ); Jo ne s e

x r e l . Jones v. Mis s . S c h. f

orthe Blind , 7 5 8 S o . 2 d 4 2 8 , 4 2 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ),

### 49

over r ul ed by Eas te r ling , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 8 1 5 ; Ja c ks on v. Cit y of W i gg ins , 760 S o. 2d 694, 695- 96 (M is s . 2 0 0 0 ), over r ul ed by Eas te r ling , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 8 1 5 ; Lef lor e Count

y v. G i v e ns , 754 So. 2d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 3 2 ( M is s . 2 0 0 0 ), over r ul ed by Eas te r ling , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 8 1 5 ; Jacks on v. Cit y of B o o n e v ille , 7 3 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ), over r ul ed by Eas te r ling , 928 S o. 2d 815; Cit y of P as cagoula v. T

om linson , 7 4 1 S o . 2 d 2 2 4 , 2 2 6 -2 7 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ), over r ul ed by Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d 815. T hi s Courtha s a l s o l ong he l d thata s t ay f orthe r emai nderof

t he
n in e ty -d a y p e rio d is th e so le r e m e d y a v a ila b le to a d e fe n d a n t w h e n th e p lain tiff fa ils to
s u b s ta n tia lly c o m p ly w ith th e n in e ty -d a y -n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t. See, e. g. , Jones , 758 So. 2d at 4 2 9 (sta tin g tha t a sta y w a s th e d e fe n d a n t’s so le re m e d y fo r th e p lain tiff’s fa ilu re to c o m p ly
w ith th e n in e ty -d a y w a iti n g p e rio d ); Ci t y of W i gg ins , 7 6 0 S o . 2 d a t 6 9 6 (sa m e ); Cit y of B o o n e v ille , 738 So. 2d at1246 (f i ndi ng t hatt he pr operr emedy f orf ai l ur e t o compl y w i th the
n in e ty -d a y w a iti n g p e rio d is a sta y ); T om linson , 7 4 1 S o . 2 d at 22 8 (sam e). ¶ 8 5
. It w a s n o t u n til D a v is thata maj or i t y of t his C ou rtab and on ed i t s ear l i er pos i t i on
re g a rd in g th e re m e d y fo r n o n c o m p lia n c e w ith th e n in e ty -d a y -n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t. D a v is , 869 S o . 2 d a t 4 0 1 -0 2 . A n d it w a s n o t u n til Eas te r lingthata maj or i ty of thi s C our tdeci ded, i n a dr as t i c depa r tur e f

r om the l egal pr ece dent , t o decl ar e t hatt he ni nety- day- not i ce r equi r ement
w o u ld b e s tr ic tly e n fo rc e d
. Eas te r ling , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 8 1 5 , 8 1 9 -20 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶86. T he maj or i ty opi ni on i n Eas te r ling i s r i f e w i th i ncoher ence and i ncons i s t ency, w hi ch becomes es peci al l y cl earw hen i ti s cons i der ed i n t he con t ext of the r el evantpr ece dentand Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 1)
. T he E as ter ling m aj or i ty ci t ed D avis and W r i ght in a n a ttem p t to

### 50

d e m o n s tr a te th a t s tr ic t c o m p lia n c e w a s c o n s is te n t w ith th e l e g a l p re c e d e n t. I d. at818- 20. H ow ever , both D a v is and W r i ght a pp l i e d a s ub s t a nt i al
- compl i ance s t andar d t o the ni nety- dayn o tic e re q u ir e m e n t. D a v is , 8 6 9 S o . 2 d a t 4 0 1 -0 2 ; W r i ght , 876 So. 2d at366. Fur therm or e, t he m aj or i ty opi ni ons i n D a v is and W r i ght w ere them sel ves dev i at i on s f rom this C o u rt ’s
c a se law e sta b lish in g th a t a s ta y is th e so le r e m e d y fo r a p lain tiff’s fa ilu re to su b sta n tially
c o m p ly w ith th e n in e ty -d a y -n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t. See, e. g. , Jones , 7 5 8 S o . 2 d a t 4 2 9 ; Cit y of W i gg ins , 7 6 0 S o . 2 d a t 6 9 6 ; City o f B o o n e v ille , 7 3 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 6 ; T om linson , 741 So. 2d at228. T he maj or i t i es i n D avis and W r i ght fo u n d th a t th e p lain tiffs h a d n o t su b sta n tially
c o m p lie d w ith th e n in e ty -d a y -n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t b e c a u s e th e y h a d n o t c o m p lie d a t a ll. D a v is , 8 6 9 S o . 2 d a t 4 0 1 -0 2 ; W r i ght , 876 So. 2d at366. T he m aj or i t i es then s etouta new r emedy f ordef endant s w hen pl ai nt i f

f s f ai l t o compl y a t a ll w ith th e n in e ty -d a y -n o tice re q u ire m e n t – d is m is s a l o f t h e c a s e . D a v is , 8 6 9 S o . 2 d a t 4 0 1 -0 2 ; W r i ght , 876 So. 2d at366. ¶8 7. E ven more t r oubl i ng i s tha t , i n or de rt o s up po r ti t s a brupts hi f tf r om s ubs t ant i al compl i ance t o s tr i ctcompl i ance , the Eas te r lingm aj or i ty m i s char act er i zed w hathad bee n s et outi n D avis and W

r i ght
. Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d at818. T he E asterl ing m aj or i ty cl ai m ed that“i n 2004, thi s C our tannounce d i n D a v is , 869 So. [ ] 2d at402, [ that ] i tw as no l ongerthe def endant ’ s duty t o re ques ta st ay orfa ce a w ai verof the ni nety days w hen the pl ai nt i f f f ai l ed t o com pl y w i th t he st atut ory not i ce per i od. ” I d . H ow ever , the maj or i ty i n D avis nevers t at ed thati tw as no l ongert he def endant ’ s dut y t o re ques ta st ay f ort he ni nety- day per i od w hen the p la in tif f f a ile d to c o m p ly w ith th e s ta tu to ry n o tic e p e ri o d
. See D a v is , 869 So. 2d at401- 02.

### 51

I n f act , the maj or i ty i n D avis neveraddr es s ed w hether ornotthe def endant s s houl d have
re q u e s te d a s ta y . D a v is , 869 So. 2d at401- 02. T he D avis m ajority fou n d th a t th e p lai n ti ff f ai l ed t o s ubs t ant i al l y c om pl y w i th the ni nety- day- not i ce r equi r ementby f i l i ng the not i ce of
c la im o n th e s a m e d a y a s th e c o m p la in t. I d. at402. T he maj or i ty then co ncluded thatt he pl ai nt i f f had f ai l e d t o c om pl y a t a ll w i th the ni nety- day- not i ce r equi r ement , cl ear l y s t at i ng t hat

“‘ s ubs t ant i al compl i ance i s notthe s ame as , nora s ubs t i tut e f or , non com pl i ance . ’ ” D a v is , 869 So. 2d at402 ( quot i ng Ca rrv. T o w n o f S h u b u ta , 733 So. 2d 261, 265 ( M i s s . 1999) )
. T he E as ter ling m aj or i ty al s o ci t ed W r i ght i n supportof

appl yi ng a s tr i ct - compl i ance s t andar d, but f a i l e d t o ment i on tha tthe maj or i t y i n W r ig h t had al s o appl i ed a s ubs t ant i al
- compl i ance
s ta n d a rd to th e n in e ty -d a y -n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t. Eas te r ling , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d a t 8 1 8 -1 9 ; W r i ght , 876 So. 2d at366. ¶88. T he E as ter ling m ajority w en t on to state th at “[t ] h ere is no d o u b t th e lang u ag e o f D a v is and W rig h t is in c o n flict w ith o u r p rio r ru lin g s in w h ich w e h a v e c a lled fo r th e d e fe n d a n t to
r eques ta s t ay of

the pr ocee di ngs . ” Eas te r ling , 928 S o. 2d a t 8 1 9 . A s s ta te d a b o v e , D avis and W rig h t w ere a lre a d y a d e p a rtu re fro m th e w e ll-es tab lish e d p o licy th a t a s tay w a s th e so le
r emedy f ornoncom pl i ance w i th t he ni nety- day- not i ce r equi r ement . N everthel es s , thi s di d not j us t i f y thi s C our t ’ s s udden adopt i on of a s tr i ct- com

pl i ance s tandar d i n Eas te r lingi n l i ghtof th is C o u rt ’s p re c e d e n t. See, e. g. , W r i ght , 87 6 S o. 2d at36 6 (st at i ng that this C ou rtapp l i es a
su b sta n tial-c o m p lian c e sta n d a rd ); D a v is , 8 6 9 S o . 2 d at 4 0 1 -0 2 (sa m e ); Jones , 758 So. 2d at 4 2 9 (sa m e ); Ci t

y of W i gg ins , 7 6 0 S o . 2 d a t 6 9 6 (sa m e ); G i v e ns , 7 5 4 S o . 2 d at 12 3 1 (sam e);

### 52

City o f B o o n e v ille , 7 3 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 3 -4 4 , 1 2 4 6 (sa m e ); T om linson , 74 1 So
. 2d a t226- 27 ( s ame)
. T he E as ter ling m ajority clai m ed th a t D a vis and W r i ght “s erved t o s hi f

tthe
r es pons i bi l i ty t o corr ectthe pl ai nt i ff’s fai l ure t o fol l ow the n i nety- day no t i ce requi r ementf r om th e d e fe n d a n t to th e p lain tiff,” a lth o u g h it w a s fo rc e d to c o n c e d e th a t th is w a s “ n o t ex p licitly
s t at ed i n D avis and W

r i ght
. ” Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d at819. ¶89. T he E as ter ling m aj or i ty al s o s t at ed that“[ i ] n or dert o m ake i tper f ect l y c l eart o al l that
s tr i ctcompl i ance i s re qui r ed, as s t at ed i n D a v is and W r i ght , w e her eby overrul e T om linson and i t s pr ogeny. ” Eas te r ling , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d at 8 1 9 -2 0
. T h e re a so n th e m a jo rity h a d to m a k e th is “per f ect l y cl eart o al l ” w as beca us e i tw as notatal l cl earthatthe maj or i ty opi ni ons i n D a v is and W r i ght s t at ed w hatt he Eas te r lingm ajority c lai m ed the y stated
. A g ain, ne ith er D a v is nor W r i ght a p p lie d a str ic t- c o m p lia n c e sta n d a rd to th e n in e ty -d a y -n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t. D a v is , 869 S o . 2 d a t 4 0 1 -0 2 ; W

r i ght , 876 So. 2d at366. T hus , i tw as onl y by mi s r epr es ent i ng w hatw as
s t at ed i n pr i ordeci s i ons thatthe Eas te r ling m aj ori t y w as abl e t o j us t i f y i t s l eap f

r om
s ubs t ant i al compl i ance t o s tr i ctcompl i ance . ¶ 9 0
. T h is C o u rt h a s n o ted b e fo re th a t th e p u rp o se o f th e n in e ty -d a y -n o tice re q u ire m e n t is t o not i f y the def endantof the pl ai nt i f

f’ s cl ai m s o thatthe def endantcan us e the ni nety days t o i nves t i gat e the cl ai m and pur s ue any a venues avai l abl e t o s ett l e the di s put e bef or e the p la in tif f s e e k s fo rm a l le g a l r e d re s s in th e c o u rt s . See, e. g. , City o f B o o n e v ille , 738 So. 2d at 1 2 4 3 -4 4 ; G i v e ns , 754 So. 2d at1231. T hi s C our thas hel d:

T he purpos e of

the [ M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s ] A cti s t o insur e t hat g o v e r n me n t a l b o a r d s , c o mmi s s i o n e r s , a n d a g e n c i e s a r e i n f o r me d o f c l a i ms agai ns tthem. S uch not i ce enc our ages ent i t i es t o t ake corr ect i ve act i on as s oon

### 53

as pos s i bl e w hen n ecessary; encou rages pre- l i t i gat i on s ett l ementof cl ai m s ; and e n c o u ra g e s m o re re s p o n s ib ility b y th e s e a g e n c ie s . . . . In o rd e r to c a rry o u t th e leg isla tiv e p u rp o se o f p ro v id in g re lief to i nj ur ed ci t i zens , w e hol d thats ubs t ant i al compl i ance w i th the not i ce pr ovi s i ons o f th e A c t is su ffic ien t. City o f B o o n e v ille , 738 So. 2d at1243- 44 ( quot i ng R e a v e s ex re l. R o u se v. R a n da ll , 729 So. 2d 1237, 1240 ( M i s s . 1999) )
. A s not ed above i n Sect i on I , thi s C our thas al s o s t at ed: T he purpos e of

the not i ce s t atut e bei ng t o a dvi s e the ci ty of the ac ci dents o that it m a y p ro m p tly in v e stig a te th e su rro u n d in g circ u m sta n c e s, w e se e n o n e e d to endor s e a pol i cy w hi ch r ender s the s t atut e a tr ap f orthe unw ary w her e s uch p u rp o se h a s in fac t be e n sa tisfie d
. T h u s, a n o tice is s u ffic ien t if itsu b sta n tially compl i es w i th t he cont entr equi r ement s of the s t atut e. G i v e ns , 754 So. 2d at1231 ( quot i ng Carr , 733 So. 2d at263)
. I f the def endantdeci des not t o t ake a dvant age of

t he ni nety- day per i od t o i nves t i gat e the pl ai nt i f f’ s cl ai m and pur s ue
s ett l ementopt i ons , then ther e i s no l ogi cal r eas on f ordel ayi ng the f

or m al i ni t i at i on of

t he l aw s ui ti n the court s . I tdoes notpr om ot e j udi ci al economy t o enf or ce a ni nety- day w ai t i ng p e rio d an d d e n y the p lain tiff th e p o ss ib ili ty o f re d re ss fo r n in e ty d a y s w h e n n e ith e r p a rty
w ish e s to w a it fo r th e c a s e to p ro c e e d . T h a t is w h y th e m o st s e n sib le p e n a lty fo r fa ili n g to compl y w i t h t he ni nety- day- not i ce r equi r ementi s f orthe courtt o gr anta s t ay f ort he
rem ai nd er of the ninety-day pe ri od , atthe d efendan t ’s request . If the d efendan tdo es not w i sh t o ha ve the benef

i tof the f ul l ni nety- day per i od be f or e the pl ai nt i f

f f i l es s ui ti n court , then the plai nti ff sho u ld be al l ow ed to f i l e a for m al com plai nt bef ore the n i nety- day peri od exp i res , and the def

endants houl d be barr ed f r om obj ect i ng t o t he pl ai nt i f f’ s noncom pl i ance w i th t he
n in e ty -d a y -n o tice re q u ire m e n t.

### 54

¶9 1
. G iven o u r l eg al p rec ed en t an d the m o st r ati o n al i n terpretati o n o f S ec ti o n 1 1 -46 -11 (1), it b e c o m e s c lea r th a t E as ter ling w as an aberr at i on i n our j ur i s prudence re gar di ng t he ni netyd a y -n o tic e re q u ire m e n t. T h e n in e ty -d a y -n o tice re q u ire m e n t in S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ) sh o u ld notbe r evi ew ed w i th a str i ct - compl i ance s t andar d. T o the ext entSect i on 11- 46- 11( 1) r equi r es
s tr i ctcompl i ance w i th the ni nety- day- not i ce r equi r ement , i tuncons t i tut i onal l y depr i ves p lain tiffs o f th e ir righ t t o se e k red re ss fo r th e ir l e g a l cla im s in o u r c o u rt s . See M iss . C o n st.
a rt. 3 , § 2 4 ; s ee Bunton v. King , 9 9 5 S o . 2 d 6 9 4 , 6 9 7 -98 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ) (G rav es, J. , d issen ti n g ). F o r th is C o u rt to stric tly c o n stru e a n d the n stric tly a p p ly th e re q u ire m e n t th a t p lain tiffs w ith cl ai m s agai ns ta s peci f

i c s etof def endant s – governm ent al ent i t i es – gi ve ni nety days ’ not i ce of thei rcl ai m s unf

ai r l y pr ot ect s t hes e def endant s and unf

ai r l y bur dens thes e pl ai nt i f f s by hinderi ng theirab i l i ty t o pu rs ue theirclai m s i n cou rt . Itad ds y etan otherh urdl e t o the process
o f se e k in g leg a l re d re ss a g a in st th is s e p a ra te c la ss o f d e fe n d a n ts. T h is is u n c o n stitu tio n a l. See M iss
. C o n st. a rt. 3 , § 2 4 ; s ee al s o B unton , 9 9 5 S o . 2 d at 69 7 -98 (G rav es, J. , d issen ti n g ). T o the e x ten t th at S ec ti o n 1 1 -46 -11 (1) d o es n o t r eq u ir e stri ct co m p li an ce , this C o u rt ’s app l i cat i on of a stri ct -com pli ance st and ard i s unco nst i tuti on al forthe sam e reas on s. The Si xt y -D ay -N oti c e Requir e m e nt ¶92. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) s t at es , i n r el evant part : “N o act i on bas ed upon the hea l th car e pr ovi der ’ s pr of es s i onal negl i gence m ay be be gu n unl es s the def endanthas b e e n g iv e n a t le a s t si x ty (6 0 ) d a y s ’ p ri o r w ri tte n n o tic e o f t h e in te n tio n to b e g in th e a c tio n .” M iss
. C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1 -3 6 (1 5 ). T h u s, S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ) re q u ire s th a t w h e n su in g a h e a lth
car e pr ovi der , a pl ai nt i f f m us tgi ve the hea l th- car e pr ovi derw r i t t en not i ce of hi s orherH ow ever , I w oul d not e thatw i thi n I s s ue I , the t r i al courterr oneous l y f ound t hat 7
“ P ric e c o u ld h a v e a v o id e d b e in g su b jec t to th e S e p tem b e r 1 , 2 0 0 4 , ca p o n d a m a g e s o n ly if s he had f i l ed s i xty days af

t erherhus band ’s di agnos i s and had notw ai t ed t o f i l e unt i l af

t er h is d e a th .” (M a

jo ri ty O p in io n a t ¶ 1 5 ). U ni vers it y of Mis s is s i ppiMedical

Centerv. McG ee , 9 9 9 S o . 2 d 8 3 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ), p ro v id e s th a t: 

### 55 i nt ent i on t o begi n an ac t i on f orprof es s i onal negl i gence si xty days pr i ort o i ni t i at i ng an ac t i on
o n a c lai m for injury
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1-3 6 (15 ). ¶93. I have pr evi ous l y expr es s ed my di s agr eementw i th thi s C our t ’ s s tr i ctcons truct i on and appl i cat i on of

t he si xty- day- not i ce r equi r ementi n S ect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) i n A r ceo v. T ol li ver , 94 9 S o. 2d 69 1, 69 8-704 (M i ss. 20 06 ) ( G raves, J. , dis sent i ng ), and I her eby i nco rporat e t ho se
ar gum ent s . A s I s t at ed i n t hatopi ni on, i ti s unconst i tut i onal fort hi s C our tt o s tr i ct l y enf or ce the r equi r ementthatpl ai nt i f f s f i l i ng l aw s ui t s agai ns ta part i cul arcl as s of def endant s – m edi cal providers – p rovi de w ri t t en no t i ce of theircl ai m s and then to di sm i ss theircl ai m s, regar dles s
o f v ia b ility , if th e y fa il to w a it s ix ty d a y s b e fo re fi lin g a c o m p la in t. See M i s s . C ons t . art . 3, § 2 4 ; see al

so A r ceo , 9 4 9 S o . 2 d at 69 8 -70 4 (G rav es, J. , d issen ti n g ). ¶ 9 4
. F o r a ll th e re a so n s s e t o u t ab o v e , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. K I T C H E N S A N D C H A N D L E R , J J ., J O I N T H I S O P I N I O N . R A N D O L P H , J ., J OI NS T HI S OPI NI ON I N PART. R A N D O L P H , JU S T IC E , C O N C U R R IN G IN P A R T A N D D ISS E N T IN G IN PART: ¶95. R egar di ng I s s ue I , I a gr ee w i th the M aj or i ty’ s c oncl us i on that“ the tr i al c our tdi d not
erri n i t s f

i ndi ng thatthe not i ce r equi r emen t s ar e cl ear , mustbe s tr i ct l y appl i ed, and mustbe gi ven r etr oact i ve ef

f ect . ” (M aj or i ty O pi ni on at¶ 19). H ow ever , as t o I s s ue I I , I j oi n Sect i on 7[ t ] hi s Courtr ece nt l y ha s e xpl ai ned w hen the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons begi ns t o run fo r s u rv iv a l c la im s a n d w ro n g fu l- d e a th c la im s u n d e r t h e M T C A
. Caves v. Y arbr ough , N o. 2006- C A
- 01857- SC T a t6, ( M i s s . 2008)
. I n a s ui tunderthe w r ongf ul
- death s t atut e, ther e may be s ever al di f f ere ntki nds of

cl ai m s , and eac h ki nd of cl ai m i s subj ectt o i t s ow n st atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he l i m i t at i on p e rio d b e g in s to ru n o n th e e a rlies t d a te a ll o f th e ele m e n ts o f a to rt a re p re se n t. Caves , N o . 2 0 0 6 -C A -01 8 5 7 -S C T at 8 -9, 11
. . . . In su m m ary , “the M T C A ’s one- years t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons begi ns t o run w hen the cl ai m antk no w s, o r by exer ci s e of

r eas onabl e di l i gence s houl d know , of both the damage ori nj ury, and the ac torom i s s i on w hi ch pr oxi m at el y caus ed i t . ” Caves , No
. 2 0 0 6
- CA
01857- SC T at23.

. . . H o w e v e r, f

ora w r ongf

ul

- death clai m br oughtunderthe M TC A , the tor tis not com pl et e unt i lthe fi nalel em ent of the tor tm ani

f es t s and the caus e of

act i on is kn o w n . A t th e e a rlie st, th is is th e da te o f de a th
. Caves , No
. 2 0 0 6
- CA
01857- SC T at23. McG ee , 999 So. 2d at840- 41 ( emphasi s added)
. T he tr i al courtf ound thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s began t o ru n o n A pri l 9, 20 04 , despit e t he p res ence o f w rongful -death clai m s. A ccor di ngl y, I w oul d r emand f ora new comput at i on of the st atut e of

l i m i t at i ons on s uch w rongful -death clai m s. 

### Whil e Iagr eewith Pre si ding Justic e Grave s’ s Se ction Iconclusi on, Ire je ct portions 8 

### of the r ea soning em

ploye d, including, but n ot limited to, his opini on that t he l egi sl ative purpos e i s “ abs urd, ” wi thout “ rati onale xplanation, ” and “e xtrem ely burdens ome ” upon the parti es . ( Dis se nting Opini on at ¶¶ 75-76) . Although s omeper sons may agre e that nume rous st at ute s pa ss ed by the Legi sl at urearewi thout

rationa l expl anati on and/ or burdens omeon the c i t i z e ns the y a f

f e c t , it is not th e pre r og at i veof thi s Co ur

t t o re f us e e nf orc e m e nt of l aws wh ich it d eems unwise. See Thomas v . Warden , 999 So. 2d 842, 846 ( Mis s. 2008) ( “[ o] ur cons t i tut i onal duty i s t o i nt erpr etand appl y t he l aw as i ti s w r i t t en, notas w e thi nk i tm i ght h av e b ee n m o re fairl y w ri tt en . ”). 

### 56 I o f P re sid in g J u stic e G ra v e s’s d iss e n tin g o p in io n w h ich c o n c lu d e s th a t P ric e “ su b sta n tially
c o mp l i e d ” wi th th e s t a tu t o r y r e q u i r e me n t s o f M i s s i s s i p p i Co d e S e c t i o n 1 1
- 4 6
- 1 1 ( 2 ) , a s we addr es s ed i n L ee v. Mem orial H ospital at G u l fport , 9 9 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 6 6 -67 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). 8See M i s s . C ons t . art . 1, §1 ( “[ t ] he pow er s of the governm entof the St at e of 9 M i s s i s s i ppi s hal l be di vi ded i nt o thr ee di s t i nctde part m ent s , a nd e ach of them conf

i ded t o a se p a ra te m a g istra c y , to w it: th o se w h ich a re leg isla tiv e to o n e , tho se w h ich a re ju d icia l to another , and thos e w hi ch ar e exec ut i ve t o a nother
. ”) ; M i s s . Const
. a r t1, § 2 ( “[ n] o per s on or col l ect i on of

per s ons , bei ng one orbel ongi ng t o one of t hes e depart m ent s , shal l exer ci s e any pow erpr oper l y bel ongi ng t o ei therof the other s . ”) 

### . 57 H avi ng a di f

f er entopi ni on re gar di ng Is s ue I I I , I j oi n nei thert he M aj or i ty O pi ni on, norSect i on I I of Pr es i di ng J us t i ce G r aves ’ s di s s ent i ng opi ni on, as di s cus s ed i nfr a . A s t o the r emai ni ng iss u e s, I a g re e w ith th e M a jo rity . A c c o rd in g ly , I re sp e c tfu lly c o n c u r in p a rt a n d d iss e n t in p a rt. ¶9 6. N ot l on g a go , vi a t ort r e f orm, the Leg i s l a tur e w r ou gh t s i gn i f i c a nt c ha ng e s af

f ect i ng
s ui t s agai ns tthe s over ei gn and medi cal p rovi der s . T he i m pl ement ed s t atut es w er e ena ct ed af t erconsi der abl e and he at ed deba t e i n the publ i c r eal m and w i thi n the Legi s l atur e. T he app ropri at e con st i tu ti o n al bo dy , the L egis l ature, determ i ned theirado pti on w as i n the best i nt er es t s of

the ci t i zens of

thi s St at e. T he r es ul t i ng l egi s l at i on i ncl uded the pr e- s ui tno t i ce
r equi r ement s of

M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i ons 11- 46- 11( 1) and 15- 1- 36( 15) , w hi ch ar e ati s s ue to d a y . See M i s s . Code A nn. § 11- 46- 11( 1) ( R ev. 2002) ; M i s s . Code A nn. § 15- 1- 36( 15) ( R ev. 2003)
. T he ef

f ectof t oday’s decis i on i s a j udi ci al nul l i f i cat i on of

thos e pr e- s ui tnot i ce
r equi r ement s and a r epudi at i on of deci s i ons of

thi s C our tr equi r i ng compl i ance ther ew i th. 9 ¶97. L es s than one ye arago, i n W im ley v . R e id , 9 9 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ), this C o u rt firm ly p ro c laim e d th a t “w e g u a rd
. . . d ili g e n tly th e L e g isla tu re ’s p re ro g a tiv e to se t fo rth in l egi s l at i on w hat evers ubs t ant i ve, pr e- s ui tr equi r ement s f orcaus es of

a ct i on, a nd pr er equi s i t es t o f i l i ng s ui t , i tdeems a ppr opr i at e. ” Id . at 1 3 9 . T h is C o u rt e lab o ra ted fu rth e r th a t:

### 58

pr e- s ui tr equi r ement s ar e cl ear l y w i thi n the purvi ew of the Legi s l atur e, and do n o te n c r o a c h u p o n th i s Co u r t ’ s ru l e - ma k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i ty . I n d e e d , we c o n sis ten tly h a v e h e ld th a t th e L eg isla tu re h a s a u th o rity to e sta b lish p re su it re q u ire m e n ts a s a c o n d iti o n p re c e d e n t to fil in gp a rtic u la r k in d s o f la w su its . Fori ns t ance , t he L egi s l atur e pr om ul gat ed, and w e have enf or ced, Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 1) , w hi ch r equi r es thatnot i ce be pr ovi ded t o the put at i ve def endantpr i or to b ri n g in g a c la im u n d e r th e M is s is s ip p i T o rt C la im s A c t. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 11- 46- 11( 1) ( R ev. 2002)
. Si m i l ar l y, the Legi s l atur e pr om ul gat ed, and w e have enf or ced, Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15)’ s r equi r ementof not i ce pr i ort o br i ngi ng a m e d ica l-n e g lig e n c e c laim . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1 -3 6 (1 5 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ); s ee e .g . A r ceo v. T

ol li ver , 949 So. 2d 691, 693- 97 ( M i s s . 2006) ( s tr i ct l y cons trui ng and appl yi ng st atut e w hi ch r equi r es pl ai nt i f f s t o gi ve not i ce bef

or e com m enci ng a m ed ical ne g li g en ce ac ti o n ). W im ley , 9 9 1 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 9 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o T hom as , 999 So. 2d at847 ( a Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) cas e i n w hi ch thi s C our tavow ed that“ [ t ] he L egi s l atur e’ s a uthor i ty t o m ake l aw g ives w ay to this C o u rt ’s rule-m ak ing au tho rity w h en the s u itis f il ed , n o t befo re” ); Forest H il l N urs ing Ctr. v. B r is ter , 992 So. 2d 1179, 1189 ( M i s s . 2008) ( “w e cl ear l y acknow l edged i n W im ley th e L e g isla tu re ’s c o n stitu tio n a l au th o rity to se t o u t p r e -s u it r e q u ire m e n ts . . . . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶98. R egar di ng Sect i on 11- 46- 11( 1) , thi s C our thas decl ared t hat, fol l ow i ng not i ce, the p la in ti f f m u s t w a it th e re q u is ite n in e ty d a y s p ri o r t o fi lin g s u it. See P arkerv. H ar r is on Cou n t y B d. of Su

pervisors , 987 So. 2d 435, 441 ( M i s s . 2008) ( s tr i ctco m pli ance w i th the ni nety- day- not i ce pr ovi s i on of Sec t i on 11- 46- 11( 1) i s requi r ed); L ong v. Mem ’l Hos p. at G u l fport , 9 6 9 S o . 2 d 3 5 , 4 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ) (“ [t] h e [M T C A ] g iv e s a g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity d e f e n d a n tn i n e t y da y s f

r o m th e f

i l i n g o f a n o t i c e o f

c l a i m t o c o n s i d e rth e c l a i m bef or e a law s ui tcan be m ai ntai ned ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ); S. Cen t. R eg ’l Med . Ctr. v . G u

ffy , 930 So. 2d 1252, 1259 ( M i s s . 2006) ( “[ t ] he M T C A s peci f i cal l y r equi r es the pl ai nt i f f t o w ai tni nety days

### 59

af t erpr ovi di ng not i ce bef or e m ai ntai ni ngan ac t i on agai nsta governm ent al ent i ty . . . . ”) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); U

ni v. of Mis s . Me d. Ctr. v. Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d 815, 820 ( M i s s . 2006) (th is C o u rt h a s a “ c o n stitu tio n a l m a n d a te to fa ith fu lly a p p ly th e p ro v isio n s o f c o n stitu tio n a lly
en ac ted leg isl ati o n ”). ¶ 9 9
. A s to S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 6 (1 5 ), its six ty -d a y -n o tice re q u ire m e n t lik e w ise h a s b e e n stric tly
c o n s tru e d b y th is C o u rt . See W il liam s v. Skelton , 6 So. 3d 428, 430 ( M i s s . 2009) ( qu ot i ng W il liam s v. Skelton , 6 So. 3d 433, 435 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2008)) (“ [ w ] e agr ee w i th the C our tof A ppeal s thatthi s C our t‘ has r equi r ed s tr i ctc om pl i ance w i th the mandat es of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A n n o tate d S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 6 su c h th a t fa ilu re to sa tisfy the pr e- s ui tnot i ce r equi r em ent
m andat es dis m is s alo f the p lai n ti ff’ s c o m p lai n t’ ”) (e m p h asis ad d ed ); T hom as , 999 So. 2d a t 847 ( “[ b] eca us e Thom as f ai l ed t o pr ovi de a s i xty- day not i ce a s r equi r ed by Sect i on 15- 1- 3 6 (15 ), w e m u st affi rm the tri al co u rt ’s dism issal of th e c o m p lai n t”); B r i

s ter , 992 So. 2d at 1 1 8 8 (“ M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 6 (1 5 ) c lea rly sta tes th a t no act i on m ay be begun w ith o u t pri o r no ti ce . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ); Sa ul v. Je nkins , 96 3 S o. 2d 55 2, 55 4 (M i ss. 2 0 0 7 ) (“S ec ti o n 1 5 -1-3 6 (15 ) r equi r es plainti ffs to pro v ide s ixty d ay s’ not i ce of i nt ent i on to
com m ence an act i on . . . . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ); A r ceo , 9 4 9 S o . 2 d a t 6 9 4 -9 7 ; P ita lo v. GP CHGP , I nc. , 933 So. 2 d 927, 929 ( M i s s . 2006) ( Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) “r equi r es thatan act i on b ase d on pro fession al ne g li g en ce of a he alth care p rov ider m ay no tbeg i n u nles s the def endant has been gi ven atl eas t60 days pr i orw r i t t en not i ce of the i nt ent i on t o be gi n t he acti on. ”) ( emphasi s added)
. Si m pl y st at ed, “[ w ] hen dr af t i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) , t he L egi s l atur e di d noti ncorpo rat e any gi ven exc ept i ons t o thi s rul e w hi ch w oul d al l evi at e the

### 60

pr er equis i t e condi t i on of pr i orw r i t t en not i ce . ” P ita lo , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d at 92 9 (em p h asis ad d ed ). “Sect i on 15- 1- 36( 15) ’ s not i ce r equi r ementi s a p re -su it p re re q u isite t o a c la im a n t’s r ig h t to fil e su it . ” T

hom as , 9 9 9 S o . 2 d at 84 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶100. A ccor di ng t o t he M aj or i ty O pi ni on: no pr ece denti s ci t ed by ei thert he t r i al cour tor the par t i es support i ng the tr i al co u rt ’s fail u re to g ive a toll ing effec t t o th e o ri g inal co m p lai n t du e to P ri ce ’s f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de s t atut ory not i ce. (M a jo rity O p in io n a t ¶ 2 7 ). In iti a lly , I n o te th a t th e “ [f] a ilu re to c ite re lev a n t au th o rity obvi at es the appel l at e court ’ s obl i gat i on t o r evi ew s uch i s s ues . ” In re Sm ith , 926 So. 2d 878, 886 (M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng B y ro m v. S ta te , 863 So
. 2d 83 6, 863 (M i ss. 20 03 ))
. N on et heles s, the M aj or i ty choose s t o r evi ew thi s i s s ue, ci t i ng O w ens v. Mai , 89 1 S o . 2 d 2 2 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ),
w h ic h is ir re le v a n t to th e is s u e s p re s e n te d in th is c a s e . See ¶ 103 i nfr a . I n s o doi ng, t he M a jo rity re jec ts th e p ro p o sitio n th a t th e le g isla tiv e ly -m a n d a ted p re -su it n o tice re q u ire m e n ts of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i ons 11-46- 11( 1) and 15-1- 36( 15) cons t i tut e “a condi t i on pr ece dent t o f i l i ngp arti cu lar kind s o f la w su its . ” W im ley , 9 9 1 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 9 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See a l so T hom as , 999 So. 2d at846 ( “bec aus e the def endant s i n thi s cas e di d nothave ‘ s i xty ( 60) days pri or w ri t t en n oti ce of the int enti on t o b egin the acti on , ’ this la w su it w as notlaw

f ul l y f i l ed , and i tis of

no l egal ef f ect”) ( em ph asi s adde d ); Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d at819 ( abs entthe req u isi te no ti ce , the c o m p lai n t i s d ee m ed “p rem ature ly fi led . .
. . ”). ¶101. I n s hor t , the r i ghtt o s ue heret ofore has b een con dit i oned upon f ul f i l l m entof the
s t atut ory not i ce r equi r ement . “I ti s cer t ai nl y an undi s put abl e and i nvar i abl e rul e of l aw that
a r i gh to f a c t i on mus tb e c ompl e t e when a n a c t i on the r e f ori s c omm e nc e d
. . . . ” Cra w ford

### See Maj ori ty Opinion at ¶ 2. 10 

### See Mis s. Code Ann. § 15-1- 69. 11 

### 61 Com m er cial

Con s tr uctors, I

nc. v. Mar ine I

ndust . R es idential

I nsulati on, I

nc. , 437 So. 2d 15, 16 ( M i s s . 1983) ( quot i ng G eorgia P ac. R y. Co. v. B air d , 76 M i s s . 521, 24 So. 195, 196 ( 1898) )
. T hus , i n the abs ence of s at i s f yi ng the s t atut ory not i ce r equi r ement , no r i ghtof a ct i on exi s t s and, ther ef

or e, no “dul y f

i l ed” or“dul y comm ence d” ci vi l act i on exis t s , as 10 11 p re su m p tiv e ly d e c lar e d b y th e M a jo rity in th e a b se n c e o f a u th o rity o r c ita tio n . W h ile th is C o u rtp rev iou sly h as e rron eo u sly h eld th at th e M T C A ’s p re-su itn o ti ce req u ir em en ts are ju ri s d ic tio n a l, th e y a re n o t m e re ly “ d ir e c tiv e ” e ith e r. J a c kso n v. L u m

p k in , 697 So. 2d 1179, 1 1 8 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ) (in c o rre c tly h o ld in g th a t t h e n o tice re q u ire m e n ts a re ju risd ictio n a l;
c o rr e c tly h o ld in g th a t s u c h re q u ir e m e n ts a re n o t s im p ly “ d ir e c tiv e ” ), over r ul ed on other gr ounds by Ca rrv. T

o w n o f S h u b u ta , 7 3 3 S o . 2 d 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ). In ste a d , the p re -su it
n o ti ce requ ir em en ts o f th e M T C A are ak in t o fede ral statu tory no ti ce requ ir em en ts in empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on s ui t s . Fori ns t ance , underthe A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym ent A c t, “b e fo re a n a g g rie v e d p a rty ca n co m m e n c e a c iv il a c tio n o n an ag e d isc rim in a tio n c laim he mustf

i l e a c har ge w i th [ the] E E O C ‘ w i thi n 180 days aft erthe al l eged unl aw f ul pr act i ce
occu rr ed. ’ ” P r uet

P r od. Co. v. Ayles , 7 84 F. 2 d 12 75 , 1 27 9 ( 5th Ci r . 1 98 6) ( quot i ng 29 U .S .C . § 6 2 6 (d )( 1 ))
. See al s o Y e e v. B a ldw in , 2009 W L 1361527, at*2 ( 5th C i r . M ay 15, 2 0 0 9 ) (“‘[ f] ail u re to n o ti fy th e E E O co u n selo r i n [ a] ti m ely fash ion m ay b ar’ the e m p loy ee ’s cl ai m ”)
. I n Zi

pes v. T r ans W or ld A ir lines, I

nc. , 455 U
. S. 385, 102 S. C t . 1127, 71 L
. E d. 2d

### 62

234 ( 1982) , the U ni t ed S t at es Supre m e C our tdet erm i ned that“f i l i ng a t i m el y char ge of d isc rim in a tio n w ith th e E E O C is nota ju ris d ictio n a l p re re q u isite t o s ui ti n f eder al court , but
a r equi r em ent

that, l i ke a st atute of

l i m i t at i on s, i s su b

jec t to w a ive r, es to

p p e l, a n d e q u ita b le t ol l i ng . ” Zi

pes , 455 U
. S. a t393 ( emphasi s added)
. I n Ayles , t he Fi f th C i r cui tci t ed Zi

pes in fi nd i ng that “this t i m el y fi l i ng of a ch arge i s nota j ur is di ct i onalr equi r em ent i n the s ens e that f ai l ure t o do so depr i ves the di s tr i ctcourtof s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, buti s aki n t o a l i m i t at i on s st atute w hich a pl ai nti ff m ustsat i sf

y as a c o n d iti o n p re c e d e n t to fil in gsu it . ” Ayles , 784 F. 2d at1279 ( ci t i ng Zi pes , 4 5 5 U .S . a t 3 9 3 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o Y ee , 2 0 0 9 WL 1361527, at*2 ( “[ t ] he exha us t i on r equi r ementi s notj ur i s di ct i onal , how ever , and i s s ubj ect to the tr ad it ion al eq u it ab le de fen ses o f w aive r, esto p p el, an d eq u it ab le t o ll ing ”). ¶102. S i m i l arl y, pre- sui tnot i ce r equi r ement s c oul d be c om pared t o st and i ng dis pu t es. St andi ng, l i ke s at i s f

act i on of the pr e- s ui tnot i ce r equi r ement s , “i s t o be det erm i ned as of the
comm ence m entof

s ui t. . . . ” L u

jan v. D efe n ders o

f W il dli fe , 504 U
. S. 55 5, 57 1 n
. 5, 11 2 S. C t . 2130, 2142, 119 L
. E d. 2d 351, 371 ( 1992)
. I n D el ta Heal th G r oup, I

nc. v. E s tate of Pope e x r e l . Pay ne , 9 9 5 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 (M iss. 20 0 8 ), th is C o u rtd eterm ined that “[t ] h e L eg isl ature fa ile d to c o n fe r s ta n d in g o n a g re a t- n e p h e w . . . . T h is C o u rt is w ith o u t a u th o ri ty to . . . empow e[ r ] hi m w i th a l egal r i ghtt o comm ence s ui t . ” Id . at 1 2 6 . S im ilarly , this C o u rt is
w ith o u t au th o rity to e m p o w e r P ric e w ith th e rig h t to c o m m e n c e su it. “ W e re th is C o u rt to al l ow such a scen ari o, any person co uld com m ence a n acti on , t oll the st atute of l i m i t at i on s, [ and]
. . . keep the courthous e dooropen . . . . ” Id
.

### Whil e “ equitabletollin g” co uldbe p ermissible, se e Zipe s , 45 5 U .S. at 3 93 (emph asis 12 

### adde d), it is cl early not impl ic at ed in theca se sub judic e . See footnote7 infra
. Pri ce ’s bri ef

provi des that t

he de ci si on to f

il e the c ompl aint on Augus t 31, 2004, one 13 

### day af te r se nding noti ceof cla im lette rs , “wa s not a si mpl e m is take but rathe r the r es ult

of a s trat egi c de ci si on . . . .”In making t hat deci si on, Pric e doe s not

dis putethat Se ctions 11- 46 -11 (1) an d 1 5-1 -36 (15 ) “are clear intheir mean ing andno t ambig uo us . . . .” 63 ¶103. W hy i s the M aj or i ty’ s r el i ance on Maim i s pl aced? T he i ssue addr es s ed i n Ma i w as “w hetherf

ai l ur e t o s erve a de f

endantw i thi n 120 d ays as requi r ed by R ul e 4( h) of t he M i ssi ssi pp i R ul es of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e i s a ‘ m att erof f or m ’ as cont empl at ed by M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 69. ” Mai , 891 So. 2d at2 22
. U nli ke t he pr e- s ui tnot i ce r equi r ement s of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i ons 11- 46- 11( 1) a nd 15- 1- 36( 15) , “ cl ear l y w i thi n the pur vi ew of t he L egi s l ature, ” W

im ley , 991 So. 2d at139, the f ai l ur e t o s erve i s a s ubj ectcl ear l y w i thi n t he
r eal m of “thi s C our t ’ s rul e- m aki ng r es po nsi bi l i ty. ” Id
. A s s uch, the pr e- s ui tnot i ce
r equi r ement s do not“ abr ogat [ e] the M i s s i s s i ppi Rul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e . . . by i nval i dat i ng compl ai nt s thatw er e pr oper l y f i l ed and s erved. ” ( M aj or i ty O pi ni on at ¶ 29)
. R ather , our pr ece dentdi ct at es thatthe f ai l ur e t o abi de by s uch pr e- s ui tnot i ce r equi r ement s for ecl os es t he pos s i bi l i ty of

a “pr oper l y f

i l ed, ” l egal l y e f

f ect i ve compl ai nt . A s thi s compl ai nt“i s of no l egal
e ff e c t[,]” a c c o rd in g to th e p ri o r h o ld in g s o f t h is C o u rt , T hom as , 9 9 9 S o . 2 d at 8 4 6 , I am a t a l os s as t o w hy the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w oul d be t ol l ed. 12 ¶104. T o hol d ot herw i s e nul l i f i es t he l egi s l at i vel y- enac t ed, pr e- s ui tnot i ce r equi r ement s and rep u d iat es th e p ri o r ho lding s o f th is ve ry C o u rt . T h e ru li n g g ran ts l it igan ts l icen se to sp u rn l egi s l at i ve di r ect i ves , as w as don e in t hi s cas e. D eci s i ons s uch as thi s r ew ar d thos e w ho 13

### 64

i nt ent i onal l y f

ai l t o f ol l ow s t atut or i l y- pr es cr i bed conduct and l i kel y w i l l l ead t o f ur ther
e ro sio n o f th e le g isla tio n , su c h a s a p p lica tio n o f M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -6 9 to compl ai nt s f

i l ed w i thoutpr opernot i ce. ¶10 5. “W hil e the ri gh t un d er o ur st at e and feder al con st i tuti on s to a ccess to o ur co urt s is a
m a tter b e y o n d d e b a te, th is rig h t i s c o u p led w ith res p o n sib ili ty , in c lu d in g th e re sp o n sib ili ty to compl y w i th l egi s l at i ve enac t m ent s , rul es , and j udi ci al deci s i ons . ” A r ceo , 949 So. 2d at697. T oday’ s deci s i on act s t o “r enderm eani ngl es s any rul e ors t atut e s ett i ng t i m e l i m i t at i ons on l i t i gant s . ” Id
. N ul l i f

i cat i on o f the s t atut ory not i ce r equi r ement s , abs entcons t i tut i onal i nf i r m i ty, i s a dec i s i on f

orthe Legi s l atur e al one.