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 8 - CA- 0 2 0 7 4 - S CT L O U I S E ME A D O WSA N

D L A V EL L E ME

A D O WS
v. KEN DAL L T. B LA KE, M

. D . , M I SSI SSI PPI BA PTIST H EALTH SYST EM S, I NC . d / b / a M I SS I SS I PPI BAP TI S T M EDICAL CENTER
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 08/ 2008 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W . SW AN YER GER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: RO BERT V . GR EENLEE S HANE F . L ANGS T ON A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S : L E O J O S E P H C A R M O D Y , J R . PA M ELA SU E R A TLI FF S T U A R T R O B IN S O N , J R . GA YE N ELL LOTT CU RRI E E UGE NE RA NDOL P H NAYL OR NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - M EDI CAL M ALP RACTI CE D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 06/ 10/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D P I E R C E , JJ. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. L o u ise M e a d o w s a n d L a v e lle M e a d o w s (th e M e a d o w se s) f iled su it ag a in st K e n d a ll T . B l ake, M . D . (B l ake) and M i s s i s s i ppi B apt i s tH eal th Syst ems, I nc. d/b/ a M i s s i s s i ppi B apt i s tM edi cal C ent er( B apt i s t ) i n the C i r cui tCourtof the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty, al l egi ng m edi cal ne gl i gence i n the ca r e and tr eatm entof L oui s e M eadow s ( L oui s e)

### Th e recordreveals th at the M eado wses’ atto rne yactu ally submittedthe certificate 1 

### pursuant to M ississipp i Co de S ection11 -1-5 8, whichstates, in p ertinent part: 1) Inanyactiona g ai n st a licensedphysician , healthcare pro vid er or h ealth carepra ctitione r f

or inj uri es or wrongfuldeath ari sing out of thecour seof medical, surgical o r oth er pro fession al services where expert testimo nyis oth erwise requiredbylaw, the comp laint shall be accomp aniedb y a certificate executed b y th e attorn ey fo r the p laintiff d eclaring that: (a) T he att orne y has re vie wed the f ac ts of the c as e and has cons ult ed 2 a n d lo ss o f c o n so rtiu m o n b e h a lf o f L a v e lle M e a d o w s (L a v e lle). B lak e a n d B a p tist filed th e ir D e fe n d a n ts’ J o in t M o tio n to D ism iss fo r P lain tiffs’ F a ilu re to C o m p ly w ith th e R e q u ire m e n ts of M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 58, w hi ch the tr i al courtgr ant ed, di s m i s s i ng the M eadow ses’ cl ai m s w i th pr ej udi ce. T hus , the M eadow s es pe r f ect ed thi s a ppeal
. Fi ndi ng thatB l ake a nd B apt i s tw ai ved t hei rdef ens e as s ert i ng the pl ai nt i f f s ’ f ai l ur e t o compl y w i th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 1- 58, w e r ever s e and r emand t o the tr i al courtf orf ur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t ent
w i th thi s opi ni on.

F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶ 2
. O n A u g u st 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 , th e M e a d o w se s filed th e ir C o m p lain t a g a in st B lak e a n d B a p tist,
as s ert i ng medi cal ne gl i gence i n the car e and tr eatm entof L oui s e betw een J anuary 27, 2004, and M ar ch 30, 2004, r es ul t i ng i n am put at i on of par tof Loui s e' s ri ghtl eg, as w el l as a l os s of
con sort i um cl ai m by L avell e. T he M eado w ses att ached their C ert i fi cat e of Plai nti ff s’ A tto rn e y to th e c o m p la in t ( re fe re n c in g M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 6 ) in w h ich th e ir att orney ce r t i f

i ed thathe had r eques t ed the medi cal r ecor ds f r om the def

endant s butthe
r ecor ds had notbeen pr oduced atthe t i m e of f i l i ng the compl ai nt . T he M eadow s es obt ai ned 1

### with at lea st one (1) expe rt

qual if ie d purs uant

to t he Mi ss is sippi Rul es of C ivil P roce dure andthe M ississipp i Ru les of E vid ence who is qual if ie d to give e xpert te stim ony a s to st andard of careor negl ige nce and who the att orne y re as onably bel ieves is knowle dgea blein t he re le vant is sue s involve d in t

he partic ular ac ti on, and that t he att orne y has conc lude d on thebasi s of suc h revi ew and cons ult ation t hat the re is a r ea sona

blebas is for

thecomme nce me nt of

suc h ac ti on;

. . . (4) If a r equest

by theplaintif

f f or the r ec ords of the pl ainti ff ’s me dic al treatm ent by the de fe ndant s ha s be en m adeand the r ec ords havenot be en produc ed, thepl ainti ff

s hal l not be r equire d to f il e the c erti fi catere quired by thi s s ec ti on unti l ninety (90) days af te r the r ec ordshavebee n produc ed. Mis s. Code Ann. § 11-1- 58 (Supp. 2009). Again, the r ec ord r eve al s that theMea dowses’ att orne y ac tua lly subm itte d the 2 

### certificate pursuant to M ississipp i Co de S ection11 -1-5 8. 3 the medi cal r ecor ds f

r om B apt i s ton Sept ember10, 2004, and s ever al m onths l at er , on J une 13, 2005, the M eadow s es f i l ed anotherC ert i f

i cat e of Pl ai nt i f f s ’ A t t orney ( r ef

er enci ng M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 36) i n w hi ch thei ratt orney ce r t i f i ed that“af

t err ece i vi ng t he
m edi cal r ecor ds f

r om the D ef

endant s , I r evi ew ed t he f act s of thi s cas e and cons ul t ed w i th at l eas tone ( 1) expert. . . and thatI have c oncl uded on the bas i s of s uch r evi ew and
cons ul t at i on t hatt her e i s a r eas onabl e bas i s f orthe comm ence m entof thi s act i on agai ns tt he D ef endant s . ” Bapt i s tand B l ake f i l ed thei rA ns w er s on J anuary 14, 2005, and J anuary 20, 2 2005, r es pect i vel y, both cont ai ni ng a m ot i on t o str i ke and di s m i s s the M eadow s es ’ compl ai nt f orf ai l ur e t o compl y w i th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 1- 58. ¶3
. T her eaf

t er , on Fe brua r y 2 7, 20 05 , Loui s e di e d. Lav e l l e thu s f i l e d h i s M ot i on f

or L eave of C our tt o F i l e Fi r s tA m ended Com pl ai nton J ul y 20, 2005, i n w hi ch he w as “s eeki ng

### Th e pro po sed F irst Amen dedCo mplaint was attach ed to the M otio n as anexh ibit. 3 

### “Mead ow ses” will continu e to be used in referrin g co llectivelyto th e plaintiff(s) in 4 

### thi s a ction. 4 [th e trial c o u rt’s] p e rm iss io n to a m e n d th e c o m p lain t t o ad d cla im s o f w ro n g fu l d e a th a n d to
a d d a s P lain tiffs K a y e B u rt a n d Ju d y B ro w n , d a u g h ter s a n d a d d iti o n a l w ro n g fu l d e a th b en eficiari es o f L o u ise M ea d o w s. ” B lake fi led h is r esp o n se, w h ich B ap ti st j o ined
. L ater, 3 on J anuary 15, 2006, B apt i s tal s o f i l ed i t s Sugges t i on of D eath t o sugges tupon the r ecor d t he death of L oui s e. ¶4. O n M arch 30, 200 7, m ore than tw o y ears aft er this sui tw as f i l ed, B l ake and B apti st filed th e ir Jo in t M o tio n to D ism iss fo r P lain tiffs’ F a ilu re to C o m p ly w ith th e R e q u ire m e n ts of M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 58, as s ert i ng thatthe s ui tm us tbe di s m i s sed ba s ed on the M eadow s es ’ f

ai l ur e t o f

i l e thei rC ert i f

i cat e of Pl ai nt i f f s ’ A t t orney w i thi n ni nety da ys af t er 4 th e m e d ica l re c o rd s w e re p ro d u c e d . B lak e a n d B a p tist als o filed th e ir Jo in t M o tio n to D i s m i s s S uitW i thoutPr ej udi ce f orFai l ur e t o Subst i tut e Part i es and I ncorpor at ed M em orandu m of A uthori t i es on this d at e. T he M eado w ses f i l ed res po nses t o bo th M oti on s. Subse quent l y, o n F ebrua r y 8, 2008, the H i nds C ounty C i r cui tC ourtent er ed i t s O r derand J udgm entof

D i s m i s s al W i th Pr ej udi ce gr ant i ng D ef endant s ’ J oi ntM ot i on t o D i s m i s s f or P lain tiffs’ F ail u re to C o m p ly w ith M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1-5 8 , d ism issi n g the c ase w ith p rejud ice. B ase d o n it s d ism issal f o r fail u re to c o m p ly w ith S ec ti o n 1 1 -1-5 8 , the tri al co u rt di s m i s s ed as moot the D ef endant s ’ J oi ntM ot i on t o D i s m i s s f orFai l ur e t o Subst i tut e Par t i es

### The i dentif ie d sol e he ir s areKayeBurt and J udy Brown, thedaught er s of Lavel leand 5 

### Lo uise M eado ws. 5 a n d P lain tiffs’ M o tio n to A m e n d C o m p lain t. F ro m the tri a l co u rt’s ju d g m e n t o f d ism iss a l, th e M e a d o w se s a p p e a l to th is C o u rt.

F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HI S COURT ¶5. D ur i ng the f

i r s t w eek of N ovember 2009, af t er the M eadow s es per f ect ed thi s appea l and aft er the fi l i ng of both the app el l ants ’ bri ef and the app el l ees’ bri efs , L avell e died. T hu s, on N ovember12, 2009, couns el f orthe M eadow s es fi l ed a N ot i ce of Sugges t i on of

D eath;
a n d M o tio n to S tay B rie fin g S c h e d u le o r, in th e A ltern a tiv e , fo r E n lar g e m e n t o f T im e to F ile R epl y Bri ef

w i th thi s Court
. T he f

ol l ow i ng w as s t at ed w i thi n the Sugges t i on of D eath and M ot i on: T he above i dent i f

i ed s ol e hei r s of

the dec eas ed A ppel l antint end t o open an 5 es t at e i n the name of thei rdece as ed f

at her, s eek appoi nt m entas adm i nis tratri x(es) , and m ov e this C ou rtf or subst i tuti on as party A pp el l ant( s) i n the above s tyl ed ca us e pur s uantt o M i s s . R . A pp. P. 43( a)
. U nder s i gned c o u n se l, th e re fo re , m o v e s th is C o u rt fo r a su sp e n sio n o f th e b rie fin g sc h e d u le p u rsua n t t o M iss. R . A p p . P . 4 3 (a) to allow a rea so n ab le t im e for the s o le he ir s t o be appoi nt ed per s onal r epre s ent at i ve( s ) of A ppel l ant ’ s es t at e and unt i l the h e irs h a v e a n o p p o rtu n ity to m o v e th e C o u rt fo r su b stitu tio n a s th e p a rty A p p ell an t( s). A n O r derw as e nt er ed i n w hi ch thi s C our ts t at ed “thatthe N ot i ce of Sugges t i on of

D eath; and M o tio n to S tay B ri e fi n g S c h e d u le o r, in th e A ltern a tiv e , fo r E n lar g e m e n t o f T im e to F ile R epl y B r i ef

f i l ed by couns el f

orA ppel l ant s i s gr ant ed i n thatA ppel l ant s ’ r epl y br i ef i s due on J anuary 12, 2010. ” I n thei rt i m el y- f i l ed r epl y bri ef, the M eadow s es i ncorpor at ed the f ol l ow i ng m ot i on:

### Th e Letters o f Administratio n autho rizing Kay e Burt to s erv e as Administratrixin 6 

### thees tateof Loui seMea dows and in t he e st at e of

Lave ll e Me adow s wereatta che d to t he replybrief as ex hib its. 6 C ont empora neo us w i th the f i l i ng of thi s R epl y br i ef

, and i n l i ghtof

the rec en tl y issue d let ters o f a d m inistrati o n , the M ea d o w s m o v e this C o u rt pur s uantt o M i s s . R . A pp. P. 43( a) t o s ubs t i tut e as named pl ai nt i f f s and app el l ants i n p l ace of L av el l e M eado w s, decea sed, and L ou i se M eado w s, d e c e a se d , the fo llo w in g : K a y e B u rt, i n d iv id u a lly a n d a s a d m in istra trix , h e ir and w rongf

ul death benef

i ci ary of the es t at e of

L oui s e M eadow s , dece as ed, and as admi ni s tr atr i x and hei rof the es t at e of

L avel l e M eadow s , dece as ed; and J ud y B row n, i ndi vi dual l y and as hei rand w r ongf ul death benef

i ci ary of the e sta te o f L o u ise M e a d o w s, d e c e a se d , an d a s h e ir o f th e e sta te o f L a v e lle M eadow s , dece as ed. 6 ¶6
. O n J anuary 2 8, 2 01 0, Bl a ke f i l e d hi s M ot i on t o Str i ke A ppel l ant s ’ R eques t f or Subst i tut i on, or , i n the A l t ernat i ve, f orA dd i t i onal B r i ef

i ng on W hetherR eques t ed S u b sti tuti o n is Pe rm issi b le U n d er M issi ssipp i L aw , a n d B ap ti st fi led it s Jo ind er. T h is C o u rt
s ubs equent l y ent er ed i t s O r derdenyi ng the M ot i on; how ever , thi s Courtor der ed couns el f or th e M e a d o w se s to file th e a p p ro p ria te m o tio n fo r su b stitu tio n o f p a rties p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i R u le o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 4 3 (a ) a n d g a v e B a p tist an d B lak e th e o p p o rtu n ity t o fi l e the i rr es pons es , i ncl udi ng any ci t at i on of author i ty i n oppos i t i on t o the mot i on f or
s ubs t i tut i on of

part i es . T hi s C our tal s o st at ed t hati tw oul d consi dert hi s addi t i onal i s s ue on appea l as w el l as the otheri s s ues al r eady r ai s ed. Pur s uantt o thi s C ou rt ’ s O r der , t he M eadow s es f

i l ed thei rA ppel l ant s ’ R ul e 43( a) M ot i on t o S ubs t i tut e, and B apt i s tand B l ake

### Th e Mead ow ses also filedth eir App ellants’ Mo tionto S trike App ellees’ Untimely 7 

### Res ponse s in Opposi tion to Appel lant’ s Rul e 43( a) Moti on to Subs ti tut e, and Ba pti st and Blake both re sponde d the re to; however , theMeadows es ’ Moti on to Strike is denie d in t hat both Bap tist and Blake tim ely fi le d the ir re spons es bas ed on this Court ’s Orde r e nte re d Febr uar y 17, 2010. A pane l of

thi s Cour t c onduct ed oralargume nts on March 30, 2010. 7 filed th e ir re sp o n se s in o p p o sitio n to th e M o tio n to S u b stitu te w h ich a re n o w b e fo re th is C o u rt. 7 DI S CU S S I ON ¶7. T he M eadow s es pre s entt hr ee i s s ues fort hi s C our t ’ s consi der at i on: (1) w hether B l ake
a n d B a p tist w a iv e d th e ir o b jec tio n to th e M e a d o w se s ’ la c k o f stric t co m p lian c e w ith M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 1- 58( 4) by act i vel y l i t i gat i ng the ca s e f ornear l y thr ee ye ar s and b y w a iti n g u n til a fte r th e M e a d o w se s h a d d e sig n a ted th e ir e x p e rts b e fo re p u rsu in g th e ir d e fe n se ; (2 ) a lte rn a tiv e ly , w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt’s d ism iss a l w a s e rro n e o u s in lig h t o f th is C our t ’ s abandonmentof t he rul e of

s tr i ctcom pl i ance w i th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 1- 58
as s t at ed 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 ), an d its p ro g e n y , an d w h e th e r th is
cas e s houl d be r emanded f oran evi dent i ary hear i ng t o det erm i ne i f t he M eadow s es compl i ed
w i th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11-1- 58( 4) ; and (3) i n the f ur theral t ernat i ve, w hetherthe tr i al
courterr ed w hen i tdi s m i s s ed t he M eadow s es ’ cas e w i th pre j udi ce w hen, as s t at ed i n W im ley
v. R e id , i f

the pl ai nt i f

f s f ai l t o compl y w i th the r equi r ement s of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11-

### The Me a do ws e s f ai l e d to rai s etheis sueof whe the r Se ction 11- 1-58( 4)’ s require me nt 8 

### that a n expe rt be c onsulte d and a ce rtif

ic at e fi le d ninety ( 90) days a ft er re cords areproduc ed encro aches upo n th is Co urt’s ru le-makin g respo nsib ility, since the requ irements inthis case were p ost-su it. W

im ley v. R e id , 9 9 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 , 1 3 8 -39 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ) 

### (“[W]e are un able to ignore thec onstit

uti onali mpe rative that theLe gis lature re frain f rom pro mulgating proc edurals tatut eswhi ch re quire dis mi ss alof a com plaint , and parti cul arly a

com plaint fi le d in fu ll comp liance w ith the Mississip pi Ru les o f C ivil Pro cedure.”). A s such , we leav e this dis cus si on for

another day. 8 1 -5 8 , then the c o m p lai n t sho u ld b e d ism issed w ith o u t prejud ice. F u rth er, as p rev io u sly 8 sta ted , the iss u e o f su b stitu tio n o f p a rties is n o w a lso b e fo re th is C o u rt. ¶8. “A l though thi s C our templ oys an abus e - of
- di s c r et i on s t andar d t o an appe al of an or der g ra n tin g o r d e n y in g a m o tio n to a m e n d , Mo e llerv. A m e ric a n G u a ra n tee & L ia b ility I nsur ance Co. , 8 1 2 S o . 2 d 9 5 3 , 9 6 1 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 2 ) , we r e v i e w de novo a tr i al court ’ s di s m i s s al of a s ui tbas ed on a q uest i on o f l aw . ” W im ley v. R e id , 991 So. 2d 135, 136 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng R al

ph W al ker, In c. v. G al

lagher , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d 8 9 0 , 8 9 3 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ))
. See a l so Scaggs v. GP C

H - GP , I nc. , 931 So. 2d 1274, 1275 ( M i s s . 20 06 ) ( “W hen cons i der i ng a
m ot i on t o d i s mi s s , thi s Cour t ’ s s t a nd a r d o f r e vi e w i s de no vo . ” )
. Furthe r , “ [ w ] he n
cons i der i ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s , the al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntmustbe t aken as true, and the mot i on s houl d notbe gr ant ed unl es s i tappea r s beyond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat the pl ai nt i f f w i l l be unabl e t o pr ove any s etof f act s in suppor tof

hi s cl ai m . ” P e n n N

a t'l G a m ing, In c. v. R a tl

if f , 9 5 4 S o . 2 d 4 2 7 , 4 3 0 -31 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶9. T he i s s ues ar e r es t at ed f orthe s ake of

t oday’ s di s cus s i on.

### 9

I . SU BST I TU TIO N O F PA R TIES. ¶10. T he M eadow s es f i l ed i n thi s C our t thei r m ot i on t o s ubs t i tut e pur s uant t o M i s s i s s i ppi R u le o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 4 3 (a ), se e k in g “ to s u b stitu te a s n a m e d p lain tiffs a n d a p p e llan ts i n pl ace of

appel l antL avel l e M eadow s , dece as ed, and Loui s e M eadow s , dece as ed, t he fo llo w in g : K a y e B u rt, i n d iv id u a lly a n d a s a d m in istra trix , h e ir a n d w ro n g fu l d e a th benef i ci ary of the es t at e of

L oui s e M eadow s , dece as ed, and as admi ni s tr atr i x and hei rof t he
es t at e of L avel l e M eadow s , dece as ed; an d J ud y Br ow n, i ndi vi dual l y and as hei rand w r ongf ul death benef

i ci ary of the es t at e of

L oui s e M eadow s , dece as ed, and as heiro f t he es t at e of L avell e M eadow s , dece as ed. ” See M i s s . R . A pp. P. 43( a)
. B l ake a nd B apt i s toppos e the
m ot i on, a r gui ng that , be caus e the M eadow s es f ai l ed t o e f

f ectr equi s i t e s ubs t i tut i on i n the tr i al
court , the mot i on s houl d be deni ed. M or e s peci f i cal l y, t hey as s ertthatthe M eadow s es never
m o v e d th e trial c o u rt fo r su b stitu tio n o f L o u is e p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 2 5 , an d b e c a u se L o u ise ’s d e a th p re c e d e d ju d g m e n t, M iss iss ip p i R u le o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 4 3 (a ) h a s n o a p p lic a tio n to L o u is e . See M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 25. Fur ther , B l ake a nd B apt i s tar gue that , s i nce the M eadow s es f ai l ed t o s ubs t i tut e Lavel l e as a party- pl ai nt i f f i n t he under l yi ng act i on, R ul e 43( a) al s o has no appl i cat i on t o L avel l e. ¶11
. M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of C i vil P rocedu re 25(a) (1) st at es: I f a party di es and the cl ai m i s notther eby ext i ngui s hed, the courts hal l , upon m ot i on, or ders ubs t i tut i on of the pr operpart i es . T he moti on for s ubs t i tut i on m ay be made by any pa r ty orby the s ucce s s or s orr epr es ent at i ves of the dece as ed party a nd, t ogetherw i th the not i ce of he ar i ng, s hal l be s erved on the part i es as pr ovi ded i n R ul e 5 and upon pe r s ons notpart i es i n the manner pr ovi ded i n R ul e 4 f

orthe s ervi ce of

s um m ons . The act i on s hal l be di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce a s t o the dec eas ed party i f the mot i on forsubs t i tut i on i s not

### 10

m ade w i thi n ni nety days af t erthe dea th i s s ugges t ed upon the r ecor d by s ervi ce of a s t at ementof

the f actof the death as her ei n provi ded f ort he s ervi ce of

the m ot i on. M i s s . R . C i v. P . 2 5( a) ( 1)
. I n J ul y 2005, the M eadow s es f i l ed thei rPl ai nt i f

f’ s M ot i on f

or L eave of C our tto Fi l e Fi r s tA m ended Com pl ai nti n the tr i al court . T hi s m ot i on s ugges t ed the d ea th o f L o u ise u p o n the rec o rd stat ing , “ [p] lai n ti ff L o u ise M ea d o w s d ied o n F eb rua ry 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 .” B lak e a n d B a p tist ar g u e th a t, pu rsu a n t to R u le 2 5 , the M e a d o w se s th u s h a d n in e ty days f r om the dat e thi s m ot i on w as fi l ed t o fi l e t hei rm ot i on f ors ubs t i tut i on w i th the tr i al C o u rt ; ho w ev er, th is pro v isi o n is i n app l i cable, si n ce the P lai n ti ff’ s M o ti o n for L ea v e o f C o u rt t o Fi l e Fi r s tA m ended Com pl ai ntal s o i ncorpor at ed the M eadow s es mot i on f ors ubs t i tut i on. In the m o ti o n , th e M ea d o w ses stated : “P lai n ti ff L av ell e M ea d o w s i s see k ing th is C o u rt ’s p erm issi o n to am en d th e co m p lai n t to ad d clai m s of w ron g ful de ath a n d t o ad d as P lai n ti ffs K aye B urtand Judy B row n, daug hter s and add i t i on al w rongful death ben efi ci ari es of Lo uis e M e a d o w s. A c o p y o f P la in tiff L a v e lle M e a d o w s’ p ro p o se d F irst A m e n d e d C o m p lain t is
a ttac h e d h e re to a s E x h ib it ‘A .’” F u rth e r, in th e a ttac h e d p ro p o se d F irst A m e n d e d C o m p lain t, the M eadow s es s t at ed: “Lavel l e M eadow s , K aye Burtand J udy B r ow n, i ndi vi dual l y and on beh al f of al l w ron gful death ben efi ci ari es of Lo uis e M eado w s ( “P l ai nti ff s”) , fi l e t his fi rs t amended c om pl ai nt. . . . ” A l though the m ot i on r ef er ence d Rul e 15( a) of

the M i ssi ss i ppi R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re a n d n o t R u le 2 5 , in s u b sta n c e it w a s u n d o u b ted ly b o th a m o tio n to
s ubs t i tut e part i es t o cont i nue L oui s e’ s cl ai m s and a m ot i on t o am end t he com pl ai ntt o add a
w r ongf ul
- death cl ai m . T hi s C our tm ai nt ai ns that“‘ [ a] courtm us tl ook t o the cont entof the pl eadi ng t o det erm i ne t he natur e of t he ac t i on. Subst ance i s cons i der ed overf or m . . . . T he

### After th e M ea d o w se s filed th eir Plaintiff’s Mo tionfor L eave o f Co urt to File F irst 9 

### Amen dedCo mplaint, Bap tist filed its fo rmal S ug gestio n of Death
. Bap tist arg ues that th is sho uldtrigg er the nin ety-d ay perio d un der Rule 2 5; h ow ever, th is argument is w itho ut merit, since th e Mead ow ses prev iou sly h ad filedtheir su gg estionof d eath an d mo tionto sub stitute through the ir

M otion for Le aveof Cour t t o Fil e Firs t Am ende d Compl aint and atta che d pro po sed amen dedcomp laint. 11 l a be l i s n otc on tr ol l i ng. ’ ” A m . B a n k e rs I n s. Co . o f Fla . v. B o o th , 830 So. 2d 1205, 1214 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng A rn o n a v. Sm ith , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 6 3 , 6 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )). 9 ¶12. T he tr i al court , how ever , never rul ed on the s ubs t i tut i on- of
- part i es i s s ue, buti ns t ead decl ar ed thi s i s s ue moot by w ay of i t s O rderand Judgm entof D i s m i s s al W i th Pr ej udi ce grant i ng D efendan t s’ Joi nt M oti on t o D i sm i ss f or Plai nti ff

s’ F ai l ure t o C om ply w i th M i ss. C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 58. “[ O ] nce a cas e becomes s ubj ectt o ourappel l at e j ur i s di ct i on, w e have author i ty t o addr es s al l m att er s as m ay appe ari n the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce and economy. ” P ub. Employ e e s Ret

. Sy s . of Mis s . v. H

awkins , 781 So. 2d 899, 901 ( M i s s . 2001)
. Fr om the tr i al
cour t ’ s j ud gmen to f

d i s mi s s a l , the M e a do w s e s a pp e a l e d t o thi s Courta nd n ow s eek
s ubs t i tut i on of

part i es purs uan tto M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 43. B l ake a nd B a p tist as se rt th a t R u le 4 3 “ h a s a n d c a n h a v e n o a p p lica tio n a s to L o u ise M e a d o w s.” R u le 43 (a) st at es: If a p a rty d ies a fte r a n o tice o f a p p e a l is filed o r w h ile a p ro c e e d in g is otherw i s e pendi ng, t he per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of the dec eas ed party m ay be su b stitu ted a s a p a rt y o n m o tio n filed b y th e re p re se n tativ e o r b y a n y p a rty w i th t he cl erk of the Supr eme C our t . T he mot i on of a party s hal l be s erved upon the r epr es ent at i ve i n acc or dance w i th the pr ovi s i ons of R ule 25. I f

the dece as ed party has no r epr es ent at i ve, any par ty m ay sugge s tt he dea th on the rec o rd a n d p roc ee d ing s sh a ll the n b e h ad as th e a p p rop ri ate a p p ell ate c o u rt m ay di r ect . I f

a party a gai ns tw hom a n appea l m ay be t aken di es af t erentry of a j udgm entoror deri n the l ow erc our tbutbe f or e a not i ce of

a ppeal i s f

i l ed, an

### 12

appel l antm ay pr ocee d as i f de ath had notoccurr ed. A f t erthe not i ce of

appea l is file d , su b stitu tio n sh a ll b e e ffe c ted in th e a p p e llate c o u rt in a c c o rd a n c e w ith thi s R ul e 43( a)
. I f

a party ent i t l ed t o appea l s hal l di e bef or e f i l i ng a not i ce of appea l , the not i ce of appea l m ay be f

i l ed by thatparty' s per s onal r epr es ent at i ve, or , i f

t her e i s no per s onal r epr es ent at i ve, by thatparty' s att orney of r ecor d w i thi n the t i m e pr es cr i bed by t hes e rul es . A f t ert he not i ce of

appea l is file d , su b stitu tio n sh a ll b e eff e c ted in th e ap p e llate co u rt i n a c c o rd a n c e w ith this R u le 43 (a). M i s s . R . A pp. P. 43( a)
. I n t oday’ s cas e, w e not e thatM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 51- 3 s t at es that“[ a] n appea l m ay be t aken t o the Supr eme C ourtf r om a ny f

i nal j udgm entof

a c i r cui tor
c h a n c e ry c o u rt in a c iv il c a s e , n o t b e in g a ju d g m e n t b y d e fa u lt, by any of the par t i es orl egal representati ves of

such p art i es . . . . ” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -5 1 -3 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ) (e m p h a sis
a d d e d ). See al

s o D eSoto T

im es T oday v. Mem

phis Publ ’

g Co. , 99 1 S o. 2d 60 9, 61 2 (M i ss. 2008)
. A s such, L avel l e, as both a par ty t o t hi s act i on and cer t ai nl y a l egal r epr es ent at i ve of L oui s e, bei ng herhus band, w as ent i t l ed t o a ppeal t o thi s C our tf r om the f i nal j udgm entof

t he H ind s C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rt s u b seq u en t t o L o u ise’s de ath. T h u s, ac co rdin g to R u le 43 (a),
o n ce a n o ti ce o f ap p ea l has b ee n fi led, “su b sti tuti o n sh all b e e ffected in the ap p ell ate c o u rt i n acc or dance w i th thi s R ul e 43( a) , ” and thi s rul e i s appl i cabl e t o L oui s e. ¶13. R ul e 43 i s l i kew i s e appl i cabl e t o L avel l e, w ho di ed w hi l e thi s m att er w as pendi ng b e fo re th is C o u rt, an d su b se q u e n t to h is d e a th , co u n se l fo r th e M e a d o w se s p ro p e rly
su g g e ste d h is d e a th o n th e re c o rd . A c c o rd in g ly , the M e a d o w s e s ’ R u le 4 3 (a ) M o tio n to Subst i tut e “a s nam ed pl ai nt i f f s and appe l l ant s i n pl ace of L avel l e M eadow s , dece as ed, and L oui s e M eadow s, d eceased, the f ol l ow i ng: K aye Burt , i ndi vi dual l y and as admi ni s tr atr i x, hei rand w r ongf

ul death benef

i ci ary of the es t at e of

L oui s e M eadow s , deceased, and as

### Sim ult ane ously with the is suanceof t oday’ s opini on, thi s Court ha s ent er ed an order 10 

### granting A p p e lla n ts ’ R u le 4 3 (a ) M o tio n to S u b s titu te . 

### 13 admi ni s tr atr i x and hei rof the est at e of

L avel l e M eadow s , dece as ed; and J udy B r ow n, i nd i vidual l y an d as heira n d w rongful -death b enefi ci ary of the est at e of L ou i se M eado w s, d e c e a se d , an d a s h e ir o f th e e sta te o f L a v e lle M e a d o w s , d e c e a se d ” is p ro p e rly b e fo re th is C o u rt. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d , w e fin d th a t K a y e B u rt, in d iv id u a lly a n d a s a d m in istra trix , h e ir and w r ongf

ul
- death benef

i ci ary of the es t at e of

L ouis e M eadow s , dece as ed, and as admi ni s tr atr i x and hei rof the es t at e of

L avel l e M eado w s, dece as ed, and J udy B r ow n, i nd i vidual l y an d as heirand w rongful -death b enefi ci ary of the est at e o f L o u i se M eado w s, dece as ed, and as hei rof the es t at e of

L avel l e M eadow s , decea s ed, shoul d be subs t i tut ed f or L oui s e and Lavel l e M eadow s as pl ai nt i f f s and appe l l ant s i n thi s act i on. 10 I I . W H ET H ER BL A K E A N D BA PT I ST W A I V ED TH E D EF EN SE OF THE M EA DOW S ES ’ LA CK OF S TR I CT COM P LI ANCE W IT H M IS S IS S IP P I C O D E S E C T IO N 1 1 -1-5 8 (4). ¶1 4. T he M eadows e s a s s e r ttha tBl a ke and B apt i s t“w ai ved t hei robj ect i on t o [ t he M e a d o w se s’] lac k o f stric t co m p lian c e w ith M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -5 8 (4 ) d u e to th e ir
unr eas onabl e del ay i n purs ui ng the def ens e f ornear l y thr ee ye ar s and unt i l af t er[ the M eadow s es ] de s i gnat ed thei re xpert s a nd otherw i s e af t era ct i vel y l i t i gat i ng the mer i t s of t he
cas e. ” Thi s C our th as hel d t hat“[ a] def endant ’ s f

ai l ur e t o t i m el y and r eas onabl y r ai s e and pur s ue the enf

or cementof any af

f i r m at i ve def

ens e orotheraf

f i r m at i ve mat t erorr i ghtw hi ch
w oul d s erve t o t er m i nate ors t ay the l i t i gat i on, coupl ed w i th act i ve part i ci pat i on i n t he l i t i gat i on proc es s , w i l l ordi nar i l y serve as a w ai ver . ” M S Cr edit Center , I nc. v. Hor ton , 926

### Baptis t and Blake di d not f il e the ir moti on to dism is s unti l a ft er theMea dowse s ha d 11 

### filed th eir exp ert desig natio n, ev en th ou ghthe p ri maryp urpo se of S ection11 -1-5 8 is to “pr eve nt t he f il ing of frivol ous s uit s that

ar e not wel l f ounded in thelaw.” Johnson v . Rao , 952 So. 2d 151, 164 (Mi ss . 2007) (Grave s, J. , di ss enting)
. 14 So. 2d 167, 180 ( M i s s . 2006)
. I n Hor ton , the d e fe n d a n ts d e la y e d p u rsu in g th e ir rig h t to
c o m p e l a rb itr a tio n fo r e ig h t m o n th s w h ile p a rt ic ip a tin g in th e litig a tio n p ro c e s s . Id
. at180- 8 1
. T h is C o u rt h e ld “ th a t – a b se n t ex tre m e a n d u n u su a l circ u m sta n c e s – a n e ig h t m o n th unj us t i f i ed del ay i n the as s ert i on and pur s ui tof any af f i r m at i ve def

ens e orotherr i ghtw hi ch, i f t i m el y pur s ued, coul d s erve t o t erm i nat e the l i t i gat i on, coup l ed w i th act i ve part i ci pat i on i n the l i t i gat i on pr oces s , cons t i tut es w ai veras a mat t erof l aw . ” Id
. at181. ¶1 5 . In tod ay ’s c ase , B ap ti st an d B lake b o th a sserted the d efe n se o f th e M ea d o w ses’ fail u re t o compl y w i th Sect i on 11- 1- 58 i n thei r answ ers , w hi ch w er e f i l ed on J anuary 14 and 20, 20 05 , res pecti vely. H ow ever, B apti stand B l ake fai l ed to f urther as ser tor pursue t his defense unt i l they f

i l ed t hei rJ oi ntM ot i on t o D i s m i s s f orPl ai nt i f

f s ’ Fai l ur e t o C om pl y w i th t he R e q u ire m e n ts o f M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -5 8 o n M a rc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e M e a d o w se s filed th e ir
s econd Cer t i f

i cat e of Pl ai nt i f f s ’ A t t orney pur s uantt o Sect i on 11- 1- 58 on J une 13, 2005,
w hi ch s t i l l di d nottr i ggerB apt i s t ’ s and B l ake’ s pur s ui tof thei rdef ens e. D ur i ng thi s t w oyeardel ay, B apt i s tand B l ake a l s o part i ci pat ed ac t i vel y i n the l i t i gat i on pr oces s . T hey f i l ed
a m o tio n fo r p a rtial s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, pa rticip a ted in d isc o v e ry , fil e d a m o tio n to c o m p e l,
en tered into thre e sc h ed u li n g o rde rs, an d d esig n ated ex p erts. In E a st Miss iss ip p i S ta te 11 Ho s p ita l v. A da ms , the def

endant s r ai s ed the def

ens es of i ns uf f i ci ency of

pr oces s and i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f

s e r v i c e o f

p r o c e s s i n t h e i ra n s we rb u tf a i l e d t o p u r s u e th e m u n t i l a l mo s tt wo

### 15

y e a rs la te r, w h ile a c tiv e ly p a rt ic ip a tin g in th e litig a tio n . E . Mis s . S ta te Ho s p . v. A da ms , 947 So. 2d 887, 890- 91 ( M i s s . 2007)
. T hi s C our tconcl uded, ci t i ng Hor ton , tha t th e d e fe n d a n ts h a d w a iv e d th e d e fe n s e s . Id . a t 8 9 1
. See E s tate of G r im es v. W

ar r ington , 982 So. 2d 365, 3 7 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ) (fa ilu re a c tiv e ly a n d s p e c ifica lly to p u rsu e a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se w h ile p arti cipa ti n g in li ti g ati o n serv ed as w aive r of d efe n se). T h e sa m e m u st ho ld tru e tod ay . In th a tBa p t i s ta n d Bl a k e a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n th e l i t i g a t i o n o f th e m e r i t s o f

th i s c a s e f

o rt wo y e a rs w ith o u t p u rs u in g th e ir d e fe n se o f th e M e a d o w se s’ la c k o f stric t co m p lian c e w ith Sect i on 11- 1- 58, and i n thatther e ar e no extr eme and unusual ci r cumst ance s , B apt i s tand B l ake w ai ved the def

ens e. W e t her ef

or e r ever s e t he tr i al court ’ s gr antof D ef endant s ’ J oi nt M ot i on t o D i s m i s s f

orPl ai nt i f

f s ’ Fai l ur e t o C om pl y w i th M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 58 and d ism iss a l w ith p re

ju d ice , an d w e rem a n d this ca se fo r fu rth e r p ro c e e d in g s. A lso , fin d in g th is iss u e d isp o sitiv e , w e e lec t n o t to a d d re ss th e re m a in in g iss u e s o n a p p e a l. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 6
. F o r th e re a so n s sta ted , w e fin d th a t th e M e a d o w se s’ R u le 4 3 (a ) M o tio n to S u b stitu te h a s m e rit, a n d th e su b stitu tio n o f p a rties is g ra n ted . In th a t B lak e a n d B a p tis t w a iv e d th e ir d e fe n se o f th e M e a d o w se s’ f a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -5 8 , the tr ial c o u rt e rre d in grant i ng D efendan t s’ Joi nt M oti on t o D i sm i ss forP l ai nti ff s’ F ai l ure t o C om ply w i th M i ss. C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 58. T hus , w e revers e the H i nds C ounty C i r cui tC our t ’ s J udgm entof D i s m i s s al and r emand t hi s cas e f orf ur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 1 7 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D.T he M eadow s es di d notf i l e thei rcer t i fi cat e of

expertcons ul t at i on unt i l J une 13, 12 2 0 0 5 . 

### 16 W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N , R A N D O LP H , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CH AND LER AND PI ERCE, J J . , CO NCU R. GR AVES, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ON LY. W ALLER, C. J . , S PECI ALLY CON CUR S W I TH S EPARATE W RI TTEN OP I NI ON J OI NE D BY CARL S ON, P. J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR AND P I E R C E , JJ. W AL L E R, CH I E F J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶1 8
. I am com pell ed to w ri te sep ara tel y to ex p lai n o u r co n clus ion reg arding the defend ants ’
w ai verof

Sect i on 11- 1-58. I ti s undi s put ed thatthe M eadow s es f i l ed thei rcompl ai nton A u g u st 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 , a n d tha t th e y h a d req u e ste d m e d ica l re c o rd s fr o m th e d e fe n d a n ts p rio r to f i l i ng buth ad notr ece i ved them. I n thi s s i tuat i on, Sect i on 11- 1- 58( 4) r equi r ed the M eadow s es t o fi l e thei rcert i f i cat e of expertcons ul t at i on w i thi n ni nety ( 90) days of r ece i vi ng th e re c o rd s . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -5 8 (4 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶19. T he M eadow s es recei ved t he m edi cal r ecor ds on Sept ember 10, 2004, s o they had ni nety days , orunt i l D ece m ber9, 2004, to fi l e thei rcert i f i cat e. T hatdat e ca m e and w ent
w i thouta c ert i f

i cat e bei ng f

i l ed. T hus , the def

endant s f i l ed thei rans w er s on J anuary 14 and 12 20, 2005, i n w hi ch they r ai sed the af f i r m at i ve def

ens e of Sect i on 11- 1- 58 and i ncl uded
m ot i ons t o di s m i s s bas ed on the M eadow s es ’ f ai l ur e t o compl y w i th Sect i on 11- 1- 58. T h e r e a f t e r , th e d e f

e n d a n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d e x t e n s i v e l y i n th e l i t i g a t i o n p r o c e s s f o rm o r e th a n t wo year s , unt i l they f

i l ed anotherm ot i on to dis m i s s bas ed on Sect i on 11- 1- 58 on M ar ch 30, 2007.

### 17

¶20. I n Hor ton , this C ou rtheld that “[ a] defendan t ’s f ai l ure t o t i m el y and reas on ably rai se and purs ue th e e n fo rc e m e n t o f a n y a ff ir m a tiv e d e fe n s e . . . w h ich w o u ld se rv e to ter m in a te

. . . l i t igat i on , coupl ed w i th act i ve par t i ci pat i on i n t he l i t i gat i on proc es s , w i l l or di nar i l y s erve
as a w ai ver . ” M

SCredi t Center , I nc. , v. Hor ton , 926 So. 2d 167, 180 ( M i s s . 2006) ( emphasi s added)
. T he emphas i zed port i ons of thi s rul e ar e very i m por t ant . Puts i m pl y, t he def endantge ner al l y mustt i m el y raise al l af f i r m at i ve def

ens es , buti f

t he def ens e i s one w hi ch
w o u ld t erm i nat e t he l i t i gat i on, t he def endantm us tal s o t i m el y purs ue the enf or cementof

t he d e fe n s e . ¶21. T he purs ui t of enf or cement i s the m os t i m por t ant act i on nece s s ary t o preserve s uch a def ens e. W e not ed i n Hor ton that“a pa r ty need onl y as s erti ti n a pl eadi ng, br i ng i tt o t he
court ’ s att ent i on by m ot i on, and r eques ta hea r i ng. O nce a hear i ng i s r eques t ed, a ny del ay by the tr i al courti n hol di ng t he hear i ng w oul d notconst i tut e a w ai ver . ” Hor ton , 926 So. 2d at18 1, n . 9. T hese a re the st eps w hich a defenda nt m ustt ake to t i m el y an d reasonab l y rai se and purs ue the enf

or cementof

a def ens e w hi ch w oul d serve t o t erm i nat e the l i t i gat i on. B ut these requir em en t s pres up po se that the d efendan tkn ow s or s ho uld kno w that the d efense
w o u ld (n o t c o u ld ) t e rm in a te th e c a s e . ¶22. H er e, the def

endant s t i m el y r ais ed

S ect i on 1 1-1-58 b y incl ud i ng i ti n thei r answ ers , a n d th e y b ro u g h t itto th e c o u rt’s a tten tio n b y in c lu d in g w ith th e ir a n sw e rs, m o tio n s to d ism iss ba sed o n S ec ti o n 1 1 -1-5 8
. B u t atthe ti m e the d efe n d an ts fi led their an sw ers, th ere
w as no doubtthatthe pl ai nt i f f s had f ai l ed t o com pl y w i th Sect i on 11- 1- 58( 4)
. T he def endant s knew t he date on w hi ch the M eadow s es had r ece i ved the medi cal r ecor ds , t hat

### 18

ni nety days had pas s ed s i nce thei rre cei ptof the r ecor ds , and t hatno cert i f i cat e had be en f

i l ed i n thatt i m e. T hus , the def endant s knew as ear l y as D ece m ber10, 2004, thatthe appl i cat i on of Sect i on 11- 1- 58 w o u ld

s e rv e to te rm in a te th e M e a d o w se s’ c a se . A n d th e re w a s a b so lu tely
n o th i n g p r e v e n t i n g th e d e f e n d a n t s f r o m purs ui ngthe enf

or cementof

S ect i on 11- 1- 58 and achi evi ng thatt erm i nati on by r eques t i ng a hea r i ng on thei rm ot i on t o di s m i s s . T her ef or e, b e c a u se th e y c o n tin u e d to p a rticip a te a c tiv e ly in th e li tig a tio n fo r m o re tha n tw o y e a rs, w h ile sittin g o n th e ir S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -5 8 d e fe n se , the d e fe n d a n ts w a iv e d it. C A R L S O N , P .J ., D IC K IN S O N , R A N D O L P H , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , J J ., J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.