Opinion ID: 1902985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the tort claims act is unconstitutional.

Text: ¶ 30. Pickens's final contention of error is a multi-faceted constitutional attack on the MCTA. Pickens asserts that the MCTA violates several portions of the Mississippi Constitution as applied to individual physician immunity, as applied to minors, and as applied to medical malpractice cases brought against state-run hospitals and their employees. ¶ 31. The defendant doctors respond that this issue is procedurally barred from appellate review because Pickens did not make a constitutional attack at the trial level in response to the motions for summary judgment nor did she give notice to the Attorney General's office as required by Miss. R. Civ. P. 24(d) and M.R.A.P. 44(a). The defendant doctors are correct. In Barnes, this Court stated as follows: [T]he constitutionality issue is barred, because it was not raised in the trial court and because the Attorney General's Office was not properly notified. We accept without hesitation the ordinarily sound principle that this Court sits to review actions of trial courts and that we should undertake consideration of no matter which has not first been presented to and decided by the trial court. We depart from this premise only in unusual circumstances. Educational Placement Services v. Wilson, 487 So.2d 1316, 1320 (Miss.1986). The law has been well settled that the constitutionality of a statute will not be considered unless the point is specifically pleaded. Smith v. Fluor Corp., 514 So.2d 1227, 1232 (Miss.1987). Furthermore, Rule 24(d) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure requires that proper notice be given to the Attorney General when the constitutionality of a statute is challenged to afford him an opportunity to intervene and argue the question of constitutionality. Miss. R. Civ. P. 24(d). Rule 44(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure similarly requires service of any appellate brief challenging the validity of a statute on the Attorney General, the city attorney, or other chief legal officer of the governmental body involved. M.R.A.P. 44(a). Except by special order of the court to which the case is assigned, in the absence of such notice neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeals will decide the question until the notice and right to respond contemplated by this rule has been given to the appropriate governmental body. M.R.A.P. 44(c). The Barneses' failure to raise the issue of the constitutionality of § 11-46-11(3) at trial or to notify the Attorney General's Office of their challenge of the statute results in the procedural bar on this issue. Barnes, 733 So.2d at 202-03. Similarly, Pickens has failed to comply with Miss. R. Civ. P. 24(d) or M.R.A.P. 44. Therefore, Pickens's failure to raise the issue of the constitutionality of §§ 11-46-1 et seq. before the lower court or to notify the Attorney General's office of her challenge of the statute results in the procedural bar on this issue. The constitutional attack is thus without merit. Finally, in regards to the separate opinion, we note that the issue of the minors savings clause enacted in Miss.Code Ann § 15-1-59 (1995), was not raised at the trial level in the case at bar. Besides, even if it had been raised, this Court has already addressed this issue in Marcum v. Hancock County Sch. Dist., 741 So.2d 234 (Miss.1999) and held that the MCTA is not subject to the minors' savings clause. We decline to overrule Marcum.