Opinion ID: 1814077
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether dismissal is proper for failure to attach a certificate of expert consultation.

Text: ¶ 32. Forest Hill and Long Term Care also assign as error the failure of the plaintiff to accompany the complaint with a certificate of expert consultation at the time suit was commenced as required by Mississippi Code Annotated Section 11-1-58 (Supp.2007). In his Motion to Dismiss, Dr. Estes also assigned this failure as error. Section 11-1-58 became effective from and after January 1, 2003. In Walker v. Whitfield Nursing Center, Inc., 931 So.2d 583 (Miss.2006), this Court for the first time addressed Section 11-1-58. Walker involved a negligence/wrongful-death suit commenced on April 7, 2004, for injuries and resultant death occurring on April 8, 2002, and July 17, 2002, respectively. The Section 11-1-58(1) expert consultation certificate did not accompany the complaint commencing the lawsuit. Id. at 586. In the end, we stated that because the clear and unambiguous mandatory language of the statute required that the complaint shall be accompanied by an expert consultation certificate, Walker's complaint had to be dismissed. Id. at 591. ¶ 33. However, subsequent to Walker, we revisited this issue in Wimley v. Reid, 991 So.2d 135 (Miss.2008). In Wimley, we overruled Walker and its progeny to the extent that Walker stood for the proposition that the Legislature had the authority under our state constitution to promulgate procedural statutes dictating to the judiciary what it shall require to be attached to pleadings filed in court. Id., at ¶¶ 14-16. On the other hand, we clearly acknowledged in Wimley the Legislature's constitutional authority to set out pre-suit requirements, such as expert consultation prior to commencement of a medical-malpractice suit. Id., at ¶¶ 18-20. Because the record in Wimley did not reveal whether the statutorily mandated pre-suit requirements had been met, we remanded the case to the trial court, with instructions, for an evidentiary hearing to determine this issue. Id., at ¶ 21. ¶ 34. Returning to the facts of today's case, consistent with Wimley, we are required to reverse the trial court judgment denying the motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the pre-suit requirements of section 11-1-58(1). However, it is not necessary to remand this case pursuant to Wimley, because the plaintiff's attorney in today's case admits that he did not consult an expert prior to commencing this lawsuit. Thus, in addition to our reasons stated in discussing Issue I, supra, as to Forest Hill, the plaintiff's complaint against Forest Hill must also be dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-suit requirements of Section 11-1-58(1). Since the plaintiff did not comply with the pre-suit requirements of Section 11-1-58(1) at the time the suit was commenced against Forest Hill, we find that a subsequent substitution of Long Term Care as a party to a suit that must be dismissed was meaningless. We find this issue as to both Forest Hill and Long Term Care to have merit.