Opinion ID: 2434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act

Text: As it pertains to the claims of professional negligence and medical malpractice asserted by Bounds, the Mississippi Tort Claims Act provides: [T]he immunity of the state and its political subdivisions from claims for money damages arising out of the torts of such governmental entities and the torts of their employees while acting within the course and scope of their employment is hereby waived. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-5(1). These claims may be pursued only in accordance with the Act, which is the exclusive remedy for filing a lawsuit against governmental entities and [their] employees. City of Jackson v. Brister, 838 So.2d 274, 278 (Miss.2003); see also Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-7. Pine Belt is a facility of the State of Mississippi and therefore a government entity, and the defendant physicians are its employees. The Act includes the following provision: After all procedures within a governmental entity have been exhausted, any person having a claim for injury arising under the provisions of this chapter against a governmental entity or its employee shall proceed as he might in any action at law or in equity; provided, however, that ninety (90) days prior to maintaining an action thereon, such person shall file a notice of claim with the chief executive officer of the governmental entity. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11. The Supreme Court of Mississippi has stated that the notice requirements are substantive requirements, which are no more or less important than a statute of limitations. Stuart v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr., 21 So.3d 544, 550 (Miss.2009). It is unchallenged that Bounds exhausted internal procedures and that he served a notice on Pine Belt, although the Chief Executive Officer was not specifically named in the notice. What is contested is the adequacy of the notice served. The required contents of the Notice of Claim are set forth in the Act as follows: Every notice of claim shall contain a short and plain statement of the facts upon which the claim is based, including the circumstances which brought about the injury, the extent of the injury, the time and place the injury occurred, the names of all persons known to be involved, the amount of money damages sought and the residence of the person making the claims at the time of the injury and at the time of filing the notice. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(2). To satisfy the foregoing requirements, Mississippi law requires only substantial compliance. See Powell v. City of Pascagoula, 752 So.2d 999, 1004-05 (Miss. 1999); Thornburg v. Magnolia Reg'l Health Ctr., 741 So.2d 220, 222 (Miss.1999). In approving the test of substantial compliance, the Mississippi Supreme Court has issued the following caveat: Even though this Court now finds substantial compliance to be sufficient, we stress that substantial compliance is not the same as, nor a substitute for, non-compliance. The determination of substantial compliance is a legal, though fact-sensitive question and is, therefore, necessarily decided on an ad hoc basis. Carr v. Town of Shubuta, 733 So.2d 261, 265 (Miss.1999), overruled on other grounds by Stuart, 21 So.3d at 550 (holding that the notice requirements set forth in the statute are nonjurisdictional and, therefore, waivable). In its most recent application of the substantial compliance rule, the Mississippi Supreme Court in Lee v. Mem'l Hosp. at Gulfport, 999 So.2d 1263 (Miss.2008) (en banc), was confronted with a claim against a hospital for medical malpractice arising from a coronary artery-by-pass graft with closure of the sternum. Id. at 1264. The Notice of Claim consisted of a letter bearing the letterhead and signature of the claimant's attorney as well as the claimant's name and date of birth. Id. There followed a narrative description of the claimant's hospitalization, her surgery, post-operative difficulties, and the further course of treatment necessitated by the injuries suffered during the heart surgery. Id. Included was a statement that [t]he substandard care rendered by [hospital] employees proximately caused and/or was a proximate contributing cause of Ms. Lee's injuries. Id. The letter concluded with a request for an explanation as to why the hospital should not be held accountable for the injuries or, if there were no explanation, that the letter be passed on to the hospital's insurance carrier. Id. After reviewing the Notice of Claim, the Court in Lee determined that there had been substantial compliance with the requirements of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Specifically, the Court noted that the claimant: described the circumstances that brought about her injury; provided information regarding the extent of her injuries; adequately set forth the dates of her hospitalization and of the discovery of her injuries; listed all persons known to be involved, although the claimant was unable to verify the names of those who cared for her at the time of injury; stated the place of her injury; and set forth her medical special damages as exceed[ing] $100,000. Id. at 1267. Although the claimant did not provide her residence at the time of injury or notice, the Court found substantial compliance with the residence requirement because [t]he address of Lee's counsel was provided, and Lee's date-of-birth and dates of hospitalization were provided for identification purposes. Id. The Court concluded: Clearly [the hospital] was able to identify Lee as a patient and investigate and conduct a `review of the matter' as evidenced by its letter of denial. Id.