Opinion ID: 1901619
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: WHETHER THE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NUMBERS 2 AND 4) VIOLATE M.R.C.P. 36(a).

Text: ¶ 7. Cole argues request nos. 2 and 4 did not comply with Rule 36 because they did not contain a preamble of fact, but merely stated conclusions of law. Request nos. 2 and 4 both addressed Dr. Buckner's standard of care in treating the deceased. Cole claims there was no definition of standard of care incorporated in either of the requests. ¶ 8. M.R.C.P. 36(a) states: A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission, for purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b) set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described in the request. (emphasis added). Request nos. 2 and 4 state: Request No. 2: Please admit that Dr. Buckner did not deviate from the standard of care in her treatment of decedent. Request No. 4: Please admit that Dr. Buckner complied with the standard of care in performing services for the decedent. The requests clearly apply the legal standard of care to the facts of the case. The term standard of care is sufficient to serve as a preamble of fact. Therefore, this argument has no merit. ¶ 9. To further support his contention that Dr. Buckner's requests for admission violated M.R.C.P. 36(a), Cole alleges that neither the notice of filing nor the actual requests were filed with the circuit court. The record clearly shows that notice of service was filed on November 27, 2000, but the actual document was inadvertently left out of the record. Cole was also the recipient of a letter from Dr. Buckner's counsel dated December 14, 2000, which granted Cole an additional 30 days to respond to discovery. This letter was in response to a letter dated December 8, 2000, written by Cole's attorney requesting additional time to answer discovery. Cole was aware that Dr. Buckner had made discovery requests. Also, Cole did not raise this issue before the trial court, therefore, it may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Century 21 Deep S. Prop., Ltd. v. Corson, 612 So.2d 359, 371 (Miss.1992). This issue, too, is without merit. ¶ 10. Cole also argues Dr. Buckner did not attach a copy of the requests for admission as exhibits to her motion to strike. Cole cites no authority which states such practice is required or that the failure to include the requests as an exhibit is grounds for reversible error. Therefore, this Court is under no obligation to address this issue. R.C. Petroleum, Inc. v. Hernandez, 555 So.2d 1017, 1023 (Miss. 1990); Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1023 (Miss.1988); Shive v. State, 507 So.2d 898 (Miss.1987); Read v. S. Pine Elec. Power Ass'n, 515 So.2d 916 (Miss.1987); Devereaux v. Devereaux, 493 So.2d 1310 (Miss.1986); Pate v. State, 419 So.2d 1324 (Miss.1982). This issue is also without merit. ¶ 11. This Court finds that all arguments raised in support of a violation of M.R.C.P. 36(a) regarding the requests for admission are without merit, and the trial court's ruling should be affirmed.