Hall v. Haynes, W2007-02611-SC-R11-CV.
| Citation | 319 S.W.3d 564 |
| Decision Date | 26 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. W2007-02611-SC-R11-CV.,W2007-02611-SC-R11-CV. |
| Parties | Billie Gail HALL, as Surviving Spouse and Administratrix of the Estate of Billy R. Hall, Deceasedv.Douglas B. HAYNES, Jr., M.D. et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Charles M. Agee, Jr., Dyersburg, Tennessee, for the appellant, Billie Gail Hall, as Surviving Spouse and Administratrix of the Estate of Billy R. Hall, Deceased.
Marty R. Phillips and Ashley D. Cleek, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellees, Douglas B. Haynes, Jr., M.D. and MedSouth Healthcare, P.C.
In this medical malpractice case, we are asked to determine whether various employees of a medical corporation were agents properly authorized by appointment to receive service of process on behalf of the corporation and/or one of its physician employees. We hold that none of the individuals who accepted service in this case were agents authorized by appointment to receive service of process on behalf of either the corporation or the individual physician. With specific reference to the attempted service of the amended complaint, we hold that the authority to sign for and receive certified mail does not, on its own, confer the authority to accept service of process. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
On August 5, 2005, Billy R. Hall and Billie Gail Hall (collectively, “the Halls”) filed a civil action in Dyer County Circuit Court against Douglas B. Haynes, Jr., M.D. and MedSouth Healthcare, P.C. (“MedSouth”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging medical malpractice regarding Defendants' treatment of a condition that was first discovered on February 23, 2005.1 That same day, the Dyer County Circuit Clerk issued two summonses, one addressed to Dr. Haynes in his own name and the other addressed to MedSouth by and through its registered agent, Stevens Melton, M.D. On August 9, Constable Dennis Peckenpaugh went to MedSouth's clinic in Dyersburg, which was also Dr. Haynes's place of employment, in order to serve Defendants with process. According to the testimony of David Alred, MedSouth's administrator, when Peckenpaugh walked into MedSouth's clinic, he would likely first see MedSouth employees, including customer service agents, at the front desk area.
Brenda Enochs signed the summons addressed to Dr. Haynes. In her deposition Enochs testified that she was employed at that time in MedSouth's customer service department, where she checked in patients and assisted with billing inquiries. Besides having some papers placed before her that she was told to sign, Enochs testified that she had no recollection of her conversation with Peckenpaugh.2 Enochs testified that she routinely signed for subpoenas for medical records. In fact, when she signed the Haynes summons, Enochs thought that she was actually signing for one such medical records request. Enochs testified that she would not have signed the summons if Peckenpaugh had explained that he was serving a lawsuit.
Upon discovering that the served documents were not, in fact, a medical records request, Enochs gave them to her supervisor, Cindy Hill. Although Enochs did not know what Hill did with the documents, Alred testified that Dr. Haynes informed Alred about the filing of the lawsuit shortly after Enochs signed for the documents.
Michelle Pruitt, a customer service agent who had the same job tasks as Enochs, signed the summons for MedSouth.3 Pruitt testified that Peckenpaugh laid the summons on the front desk and asked her to sign for it. Pruitt signed the summons at Peckenpaugh's request but did not know what she was signing for. She then placed the documents in Dr. Melton's mailbox because the documents had his name on them. Pruitt ordinarily signed only for medical records but not for other mail. She testified that, if she had known that Peckenpaugh was serving a lawsuit, she would have called for someone else because she “would not have known [what to do] about a lawsuit.”
On August 25, 2005, the Halls filed an amended complaint.4 The Halls' counsel attempted to serve a new summons and the amended complaint on Dr. Haynes and MedSouth by certified mail, return receipt requested. The process documents for Dr. Haynes were addressed to “Douglas B. Haynes, Jr., M.D.” at the street address for MedSouth's clinic. The process documents for MedSouth were addressed to “MedSouth Healthcare, P.C., Registered Agent: Stevens Melton, M.D.,” also at the clinic's street address. The postal carrier delivered the certified mail to MedSouth's clinic, where Debbie Funderburk, an accounts payable clerk in MedSouth's administrative department, received the envelopes and signed the return receipts for both Defendants.5 Funderburk did not check the “Agent” or “Addressee” boxes on either return receipt. Funderburk then took the envelopes to the mail room, where she placed Dr. Haynes's process in Dr. Haynes's box and MedSouth's process in Dr. Melton's box. Funderburk testified that, to her knowledge, each individual doctor or his nurse would retrieve the mail from the doctor's mailbox. 6
Concerning the delivery of certified mail generally, Funderburk testified that “[t]he postman walks in and whoever is the first person in administration he finds he just says, here, I need you to sign this.” Funderburk was one of at least four employees in administration who could have signed the return receipt for certified mail. Funderburk testified that her supervisor, Chief Financial Officer Sheila Curtis, was aware of the fact that administrative employees signed for certified mail.
Enochs, Funderburk, and Dr. Haynes all testified that Enochs and Funderburk were neither employed by Dr. Haynes nor authorized to accept service of process on his behalf. Pruitt, Funderburk, Alred, and Dr. Melton all testified that Pruitt and Funderburk were not officers or managing agents of MedSouth nor otherwise authorized agents to accept service of process on its behalf. According to Alred's testimony, the positions held by Enochs, Pruitt, and Funderburk were “secretarial or clerical in nature” and lacked “any management or supervisory responsibilities.”
Dr. Melton was MedSouth's registered agent during his tenure as the company's president from 2002 until the fall of 2006. He testified that he could recall one instance in that period when he was served with a lawsuit against MedSouth. At other times, Dr. Melton conceded that customer service agents signed for lawsuits against MedSouth, even though they lacked the actual authority to accept service of process on MedSouth's behalf. Dr. Melton could not name the employees who worked in customer service. With regard to certified mail, Dr. Melton could recall one occasion when a letter was brought to him for signature. On other occasions the front office staff signed for his certified mail. He explained that it was “preferable” to bring the mail back for him to sign but he “kn[e]w that d[id] not happen all the time.”
During his tenure for slightly more than a decade as MedSouth administrator, Alred recalled fewer than half a dozen suits against MedSouth or one of its physicians. Alred testified that he could recall signing for a summons for a malpractice lawsuit against MedSouth during his tenure as administrator. When asked whether it was a more common practice for someone besides Dr. Melton or himself to sign for a summons, Alred testified:
As for the delivery of certified mail, Alred testified that someone in the administrative office, such as Funderburk, would generally sign the return receipt. Consistent with Funderburk's testimony, Alred stated that, when return receipts needed to be signed, the mail carrier would look for “[w]hoever is available in the front office.” Alred testified that, in signing the return receipt for process on the amended complaint, Funderburk “would have had no idea what she was signing for.” Alred was not asked about and did not volunteer what procedure would have been followed if a certified letter with receipt restricted to a particular person was delivered.
Defendants do not dispute that they actually received notice of the lawsuit, as they ultimately obtained both copies of the summons and both complaints. Once Alred knew about the lawsuit, he contacted MedSouth's malpractice insurance carrier.
Defendants filed their answer on September 12, 2005. Defendants asserted the following as their “First Defense”:
Defendants plead the defense of improper service and insufficiency of process. They were not served as required by [Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure] 4. The Summons, Complaint, and First Amended Complaint were not delivered personally to Dr. Haynes or the authorized agent for service of process for MedSouth Healthcare, P.C. Consequently, service is not effective.
Defendants did not file a motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff did not attempt new service. The parties conducted discovery on the issue of service. On March 15, 2007, approximately eighteen months after filing the answer, Defendants moved for summary judgment. Defendants argued that the Halls did not timely serve them see Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3, because the Halls did not serve individuals authorized to accept service on behalf of Haynes or MedSouth see
id. 4.04(1), (4). Accordingly, Defendants maintained that the lawsuit was time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations for malpractice actions. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-26-116(a) (2000). Plaintiff did not dispute most of the facts material to the motion, but asserted that Def...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webb v. Roberson
...Supreme Court's] 'inherent power to promulgate rules governing the practice and procedure of the courts of this state.'" Hall v. Haynes, 319 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Tenn. 2010) (citing State v. Mallard, 40 S.W.3d 473, 481 (Tenn. 2001)). The rules "have 'the force and effect of law[,]'" and "provis......
-
In re Estate of Fletcher
...however, as to the trial court’s legal conclusions. Mills v. Fulmarque, Inc. , 360 S.W.3d 362, 366 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Hall v. Haynes , 319 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Tenn. 2010) ; Bailey v. Blount Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 303 S.W.3d 216, 226 (Tenn. 2010) ). Under Tennessee law, a married couple can own......
-
Holder v. Serodino
...considered by the trial court is generally considered waived on appeal. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(a) advisory comm'n cmt.; Hall v. Haynes, 319 S.W.3d 564, 584 (Tenn. 2010); Milton v. Etezadi, No. E2012-00777-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 1870052, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 2013). Here, Mr. Serodino cl......
-
In re P. G.
...Wallace v. Wallace, No. 01A01-9512-CH-00579, 1996 WL 411627, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July, 24, 1996)); see also Hall v. Haynes, 319 S.W.3d 564, 572 (Tenn.2010) ("Actual notice of a lawsuit is not a substitute for service of process when the rules of civil procedure so require."). Here, there ......