Case Name: Argie GILCHRIST v. Chele Ann VEACH, M.D.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2000-01-13
Citations: 754 So. 2d 1172
Docket Number: No. 1998-CA-00956-SCT
Parties: Argie GILCHRIST v. Chele Ann VEACH, M.D.
Judges: PRATHER, C.J., PITTMAN, P.J., BANKS, McRAE,, MILLS, WALLER AND COBB, JJ„ CONCUR. SMITH, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED IN PART BY COBB, J.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 754
Pages: 1172–1178

Head Matter:
Argie GILCHRIST v. Chele Ann VEACH, M.D.
No. 1998-CA-00956-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Jan. 13, 2000.
Isaac K. Byrd, Jr., Jackson, Precious Tyrone Martin, Edwards, Hiawatha Northington, II, Jackson, Attorneys for Appellant.
James Lawrence Jones, Mildred M. Morris, Jackson, Kathleen P. Morgan, Attorneys for Appellee.

Opinion:
SULLIVAN, Presiding Justice,
for the Court:
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
¶ 1. Appellant Argie Gilchrist was admitted to the Rankin County Medical Center, a state hospital at that time, on January 26, 1996, for lumbar spinal surgery. During or after the surgery it appears that Gilchrist suffered a stroke. Gilchrist filed a medical malpractice action in the Circuit Court of Rankin County on January 26, 1998, against Dr. John Frenz alleging negligent performance of lumbar spinal surgery.
¶ 2. The appellee, Dr. Chele Ann Veach, was added as a defendant in an amended complaint on February 6,1998, with identical factual allegations regarding negligence as the initial complaint against Dr. Frenz. Dr. Veach was the anesthesiologist who treated Gilchrist in connection with the surgery on January 26, 1996. Gilchrist's blood pressure was 220 over 110, and La-betol was administered to lower her blood pressure the morning prior to surgery. Gilchrist alleged that to continue with the surgery in light of her high blood pressure earlier that day, and in light of her previous medical conditions of being obese, suffering from hypertension and diabetes, was negligent. Gilchrist aheged that such negligence was the proximate cause of her stroke.
¶ 3. Dr. Veach filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Gilchrist had failed to file a complaint within the apphcable statute of limitations and that she had failed to comply with the notice and timing provisions of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11, part of what is commonly referred to as the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Dr. Veach further claimed that she was immune from personal liability as an employee of the then community hospital, Rankin County Medical Center. Dr. Veach pled in the alternative that even if the Mississippi Tort Claims Act should be held not to apply, the amended complaint against her was also barred by Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-36 (Supp.1999), which provides for a two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice suits and which runs from the date of the negligent act or the discovery of the negligent act. The circuit court granted Dr. Veach's motion for summary judgment in a one-page order. That order does not adjudicate Gilchrist's claims against Dr. Frenz, and it does not contain a Miss. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification.
¶ 4. Gilchrist appeals to this Court claiming that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to Dr. Veach; that factual issues regarding the employment status of Dr. Veach and alleged breaches of duty by Dr. Veach remained to be resolved; and that the application of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act to individual physicians in medical malpractice lawsuits results in the denial of a remedy in violation of the "open court" provision contained in the "remedy clause" of Article 3, Section 24 of the Mississippi Constitution.
STATEMENT OF THE LAW
¶ 5. Because this case is not properly before this Court, it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Though none of the parties have raised the issue of whether the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment to Dr. Veach is appeal-able, this Court will address the issue on its own initiative. See Owens v. Nasco Int'l, Inc., 744 So.2d 772, 774 (Miss.1999); Williams v. Delta Reg'l Med. Ctr., 740 So.2d 284, 285 (Miss.1999); Cox v. Howard, Weil, Labouisse, Friedrichs, Inc., 512 So.2d 897, 899 (Miss.1987) (sua sponte dismissing appeal for improper Rule 54(b) certification).
¶ 6. Rule 54(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:
(b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an expressed determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an expressed direction for the entry of the judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated which adjudicates fewer than all of the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.
Miss. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
¶ 7. This case involves a claim against multiple defendants, Dr. Frenz and Dr. Veach, as evidenced by the amended complaint. The circuit court's order granting summary judgment for Dr. Veach does not adjudicate Gilchrist's claims against Dr. Frenz and is not certified under Rule 54(b) as a final judgment as to Dr. Veach. Therefore, based on the plain language of Rule 54(b) that order is interlocutory and not appealable, and this appeal is dismissed for lack of an appealable order. Williams, 740 So.2d at 285.
¶ 8. APPEAL DISMISSED.
PRATHER, C.J., PITTMAN, P.J., BANKS, McRAE,, MILLS, WALLER AND COBB, JJ" CONCUR. SMITH, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED IN PART BY COBB, J.