Opinion ID: 1919178
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Borrowed Statute doctrine

Text: ¶ 16. While statutory interpretation by another state's supreme court is not binding upon this Court, Pope correctly points out that, under the Borrowed Statute doctrine, we may consider a sister state's interpretation of its statutes where there is clear evidence that our Legislature consciously borrowed statutory language from that state's enactment. Crosby v. Alton Ochsner Med. Found., 276 So.2d 661, 664-65 (Miss.1973). ¶ 17. California law also includes statutory provisions which require a notice period before claims may be filed against medical professionals. Though we have no memorandum from our Legislature informing us that the language of the Mississippi statute was modeled after the California law, the following comparison of Mississippi's statutory provisions to those of California is dispositive of the issue: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mississippi: California: Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-36(15) Cal. Civ. Proc.Code § 364 (West 1982) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No action based upon the health care provider's (a) No action based upon the health care professional negligence may be begun provider's professional negligence may be unless the defendant has been given at least commenced unless the defendant has been sixty (60) days' prior written notice of the given at least 90 days' prior notice of the intention to begin the action. intention to commence the action. No particular form of notice is required, but (b) No particular form of notice is required, it shall notify the defendant of the legal basis but it shall notify the defendant of the legal of the claim and the type of loss sustained, basis of the claim and the type of loss sustained, including with specificity the nature of the including with specificity the nature of injuries suffered. the injuries suffered.    If the notice is served within sixty (60) days (d) If the notice is served within 90 days of prior to the expiration of the applicable statute the expiration of the applicable statute of of limitations, the time for the commencement limitations, the time for the commencement of the action shall be extended sixty of the action shall be extended 90 days from (60) days from the service of the notice for the service of the notice. said health care providers and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¶ 18. In interpreting the California statute, the Supreme Court of California has held that the statute of limitations is tolled during the ninety day notice period. See Russell v. Stanford Univ. Hosp., 15 Cal.4th 783, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 97, 937 P.2d 640 (1997); Woods v. Young, 53 Cal.3d 315, 279 Cal.Rptr. 613, 807 P.2d 455 (1991). Both the California statute and the California Supreme Court cases interpreting it predate our Statute by two decades. Thus, the Borrowed Statute doctrine may be applied, not as controlling, but as helpful authority. We also point out that the California statute and cases were readily available to our Legislature when it drafted and adopted Section 15-1-36(15). ¶ 19. Pope and the doctors make persuasive arguments. However, after applying the rules of statutory construction, we conclude the interpretation most faithful to the language of the Statute requires a sixty-day tolling of the two-year statute of limitations provided by Section 15-1-36(2). This finding requires that we reverse the trial court's dismissal for failure to file the suit within the statute of limitations. ¶ 20. We reach our conclusion today based not solely on any one argument, but rather based on the combination of a careful reading and analysis of the Statute's language, the rules of statutory interpretation including the reasonable meaning of the Statute, the Borrowed Statute doctrine, as well as reference to Section 15-1-57. Since the suit was filed on July 30, 2003, it was timely filed within the statute of limitations which did not expire until August 1, 2003.