Opinion ID: 1334233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Verified Claim

Text: The Tort Claims Act contains a two-year statute of limitations for actions brought against the State. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-110 (Supp.1992). However, if a plaintiff files a verified claim within one year of the loss or injury, the statute of limitations is extended to three years. S.C.Code Ann. §§ 15-78-80, 15-78-110 (Supp.1992). The verified claim must set forth the circumstances which brought about the loss, the extent of the loss, the time and place the loss occurred, the names of all persons involved if known, and the amount of the loss sustained.... Filing is accomplished by receipt of certified mail or by compliance with service of process. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-80 (Supp.1992). Vines alleges that she is entitled to the three-year statute of limitations, contending that she substantially complied with its provisions notwithstanding she admittedly failed to file a verified claim. Hospital does not challenge that it had notice of Vines' claim, but argues the notice was defective for lack of verification. Following her injury, Vines completed claim forms, not notarized, with Hospital personnel. These forms are not a part of the record, nor can it be determined from the record what information required by the Act was supplied to Hospital. [2] A claim against a state entity under the Tort Claims Act must be verified to entitle a plaintiff to the three-year statute of limitations. Substantial compliance is not sufficient. Rink v. Richland Memorial Hospital, ___ S.C. ___, 422 S.E.2d 747 (1992); Cochran v. City of Sumter, 242 S.C. 382, 131 S.E.2d 153 (1963), overruled on other grounds, McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243, 329 S.E.2d 741 (1985); Searcy v. Dep't of Educ., Transp. Div., 303 S.C. 544, 402 S.E.2d 486 (Ct.App.1991). If strict compliance with the Act is not required, as the Dissent urges, every case in which the statute of limitations has run will be subject to litigation. To the extent that Braudie v. Richland County [3] holds that substantial compliance is sufficient, it is overruled. The requirement that a claim be verified is imposed by the General Assembly. Had our legislature intended that unverified notice suffice to invoke the extended statute of limitations under the Tort Claims Act, it could have so provided. [4] It chose to make verification a condition precedent. Moreover, the Tort Claims Act specifically reads that it [the Act] must be liberally construed in favor of limiting the liability of the State. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-20(f) (Supp.1992). Finally, as observed in Searcy, supra, a verification serves to discourage the filing of false claims because verification permits a prosecution for perjury if the claim is fraudulent. 303 S.C. at 546, 402 S.E.2d at 487. This Court is not without sympathy for Vines and her injuries. However, it is not within the province of this Court to modify the clear statutory language set forth by the legislature.