Opinion ID: 1104826
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying summary judgment.

Text: ¶ 6. UMMC argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment in that it failed to apply the proper law with regard to the statute of limitations. This Court reviews questions of law de novo, including statute-of-limitations issues. Chimento v. Fuller, 965 So.2d 668, 673 (Miss.2007). ¶ 7. UMMC is an instrument of the State of Mississippi and is subject to the requirements of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA). Davis v. Hoss, 869 So.2d 397, 401 (Miss.2004) (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(j)). ¶ 8. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 11-46-11(3) states: All actions brought under the provisions of this chapter shall be commenced within one (1) year next after the date of the tortious, wrongful or otherwise actionable conduct on which the liability phase of the action is based, and not after; provided, however, that the filing of a notice of claim as required by subsection (1) of this section shall serve to toll the statute of limitations for a period of ninety-five (95) days from the date the chief executive officer of the state agency receives the notice of claim, or for one hundred twenty (120) days from the date the chief executive officer or other statutorily designated official of a municipality, county or other political subdivision receives the notice of claim, during which time no action may be maintained by the claimant unless the claimant has received a notice of denial of claim. After the tolling period has expired, the claimant shall then have an additional ninety (90) days to file any action against the governmental entity served with proper claim notice.... The limitations period provided herein shall control and shall be exclusive in all actions subject to and brought under the provisions of this chapter.... Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(3) (Rev.2002). ¶ 9. This Court recently has explained when the statute of limitations begins to run for survival claims and wrongful-death claims under the MTCA. Caves v. Yarbrough , No.2006-CA-01857-SCT at 6, (Miss.2008). In a suit under the wrongful-death statute, there may be several different kinds of claims, and each kind of claim is subject to its own statute of limitations. The limitation period begins to run on the earliest date all of the elements [1] of a tort are present. Caves, No.2006-CA-01857-SCT at 8-9, 11. Further, this Court applies a discovery rule to MTCA claims. Caves, No.2006-CA-01857-SCT at 5-6. In summary, the MTCA's one-year statute of limitations begins to run when the claimant knows, or by exercise of reasonable diligence should know, of both the damage or injury, and the act or omission which proximately caused it. Caves, No.2006-CA-01857-SCT at 23. ¶ 10. The pertinent facts are undisputed. The negligent act occurred on September 1 when doctors left the sponge in Williams. On September 7, Williams arrived at UMMC with complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and a decreased appetite. On September 7, doctors at UMMC discovered that a sponge had been left inside Williams. Thus, on September 7, all the elements of Williams's negligence claim were present, and the statute of limitations began to run. On September 8, the doctors removed the laparotomy sponge from Williams. ¶ 11. The statute of limitations for claims Williams could have brought began to run on September 7, 2004, and expired one year later. The statute of limitations for McGee's claim, however, did not begin to run until, at the earliest, December 19, 2004, the date of death, and the date McGee's damages accrued. The notice-of-claim letter was received on November 28, 2005, within the one-year statute of limitations. ¶ 12. The parties dispute whether Jenkins applies to this case since it was decided in 2006, and the complaint in this case was filed in 2005. Jenkins v. Pensacola Health Trust, Inc., 933 So.2d 923 (Miss. 2006). First, Jenkins simply reiterates the holding of Thiroux v. Austin, 749 So.2d 1040 (Miss.1999), which held that the pertinent statute of limitations in a case brought under the wrongful-death statute is that of the underlying tort. Jenkins, 933 So.2d at 926. Therefore, Thiroux governed this case at the time the claim was filed, and the additional governing cases Caves and Jenkins  apply retroactively to the present case. See Cleveland v. Mann, 942 So.2d 108, 113 (Miss.2006) (all judicial decisions apply retroactively unless the Court has specifically stated the ruling is prospective). ¶ 13. However, for a wrongful-death claim brought under the MTCA, the tort is not complete until the final element of the tort manifests and the cause of action is known. At the earliest, this is the date of death. Caves, No.2006-CA-01857-SCT at 23. ¶ 14. McGee, through her attorney, sent a notice-of-claim letter to UMMC on November 21, 2005. [2] The notice of claim was received by UMMC on November 28, 2005. Pursuant to Section 11-46-11(3), the statute of limitations is tolled for ninety-five days from the date the chief executive of the state agency receives the notice of the claim. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(3) (Rev.2002) (emphasis added). Therefore, the statute of limitations for the wrongful-death claims was tolled on November 28, 2005, and did not expire until March 3, 2006. ¶ 15. After reviewing the evidence before the trial court, this Court finds that the statute of limitations for the survival claim has expired.