Opinion ID: 1094056
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: wayne general hospital is a community hospital under the mississippi tort claims act entitling it to exclusive venue in wayne county.

Text: ¶ 27. The defendants argue that under Miss.Code Ann. § 41-13-10, WGH is a `community hospital' as defined in the MTCA. Hospitals and physicians protected by the MTCA enjoy their own unique venue statute provided for in Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(2). The defendants argue that under Miss.Code § 11-46-13(2) the only proper venue is Wayne County, Mississippi. ¶ 28. Plaintiffs argue that Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(2) does not preclude other venues. They argue that the statute does not provide for only one venue; therefore, venue may be determined by Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-3(1). ¶ 29. The MTCA provides the exclusive remedy for suits and claims asserted against the state and its political and corporate subdivisions. Miss.Code § 11-46-1(g) defines the term governmental entity to include state and political subdivisions as herein defined. For purposes of the MTCA, Political subdivision means any body politic or body corporate other than the state responsible for governmental activities only in geographic areas smaller than that of the state, including, but not limited to, any county, municipality, school district, community hospital as defined in Section 41-13-10, Mississippi Code of 1972, airport authority or other instrumentality thereof, whether or not such body or instrumentality thereof has the authority to levy taxes or to sue or be sued in its own name. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(i) (2002) (emphasis added). According to Miss.Code Ann. § 41-13-10(c) (2001), Community hospital shall mean any hospital, nursing home and/or related health facilities or programs, including without limitation, ambulatory surgical facilities, intermediate care facilities, after-hours clinics, home health agencies and rehabilitation facilities, established and acquired by boards of trustees or by one or more owners which is governed, operated and maintained by a board of trustees. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-7(1) provides the exclusive remedy against the governmental entity or its employees or the estate of the employee for the act or omission which gave rise to the claim or suit. Furthermore, any claim made or suit filed against a governmental entity or its employee to recover damages for any injury ... shall be brought only under the provisions of this chapter; notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary. Id. The MTCA venue statute reads as follows: The venue for any suit filed under the provisions of this chapter against the state or its employees shall be in the county in which the act, omission or event on which the liability phase of the action is based, occurred or took place. The venue for all other suits filed under the provisions of this chapter shall be in the county or judicial district thereof in which the principal offices of the governing body of the political subdivision are located. The venue specified in this subsection shall control in all actions filed against governmental entities, notwithstanding that other defendants which are not governmental entities may be joined in the suit, and notwithstanding the provisions of any other venue statute that otherwise would apply. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(2). The second sentence of this statute controls only in `all other suits filed under the provisions of this chapter,' meaning all suits other than those filed against state employees. Estate of Jones, 716 So.2d at 628. ¶ 30. This Court has held that where a plaintiff sues a county, the only proper venue is that county: There is sound reason for requiring a county to be sued in the county, or in the court which sits at the county site and has jurisdiction of the suit. A county can only act through it's officers, and these officers are charged with various duties for the public welfare. In defending suits against counties, the officers might be taken out of the county or called away from their public duties and the public interests would suffer in many cases by reason of their absence from the duties while attending court in other places than at the county site. The records might often have to be carried away from the county site, if such suits were maintained, to the place where the suit was tried and would endanger the safety of the said records and discommode the safety of the said records and discommode the public who might desire to resort to the records for any lawful purpose for which they are made and used. Boston v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 822 So.2d 239, 246 (Miss.2002) (quoting City of Jackson v. Wallace, 189 Miss. 252, 196 So. 223, 224-25 (1940)). ¶ 31. Here, it is clear that venue was proper only in Wayne County. First, WGH is, as the plaintiffs put it, a creature of the state of Mississippi. According to WGH, it is a hospital institution owned and operated by Wayne County and its Board of Supervisors and thus is a political subdivision of the state of Mississippi. Thus, there is no dispute that the MTCA applies to WGH. In addition, the plaintiffs do not dispute that WGH is a community hospital for purposes of the MTCA. ¶ 32. The MTCA is clear on this point: where a plaintiff files suit against an MTCA-protected public entity other than the state of Mississippi or its employees, venue is proper only in the county or judicial district thereof in which the principal offices of the governing body of the political subdivision are located. As we concluded in Estate of Jones, this portion of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(2) refers to all suits other than those filed against state employees. The plaintiffs do not allege that WGH is a state employee, and the record shows that WGH is a political subdivision of Wayne County, Mississippi. Thus, the second sentence of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(2) applies to this case. Having determined that Hinds County was never a proper venue for this action, we conclude that the only proper venue for the plaintiffs' action against WGH is Wayne County, Mississippi.