South Cent. Regional Med. Center v. Guffy, No. 2005-IA-00684-SCT.

• Citation: 930 So.2d 1252
• Decision Date: 01 June 2006
• Docket Number: No. 2005-IA-00684-SCT.
• Parties: SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER v. Rhonda GUFFY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

930 So.2d 1252

SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER v. Rhonda GUFFY.

No. 2005-IA-00684-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 1, 2006.

Richard O. Burson, Laurel, Wendell Joseph Wiggins, attorneys for appellant.

Leonard B. Melvin, Jr., Hattiesburg, attorney for appellee.

EN BANC.

EASLEY, Justice, for the Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 1. Rhonda Guffy (Guffy) filed suit against the South Central Regional Medical Center (Hospital) located in Laurel, Mississippi, in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County, Mississippi, on November 14, 2002. The Hospital filed its answer on December 11, 2002, raising the Mississippi Torts Claim Act (MTCA), Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1 et seq., as an affirmative defense. The Hospital also filed interrogatories and took depositions in the case.

¶ 2. Subsequently, the Hospital filed its motion to dismiss Guffy's claim on November 18, 2004. The Hospital argued that Guffy's complaint should be dismissed for failure to meet the notice requirements of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11. Guffy did not file a written response to the motion to dismiss. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on February 28, 2005. On March 15, 2005, the trial court denied the Hospital's motion to dismiss. On April 5, 2005, the Hospital sought interlocutory appeal of the trial court's ruling, which this Court granted on June 8, 2005. See M.R.A.P. 5.

FACTS

¶ 3. On or about September 20, 2002, Guffy suffered injuries when she stepped into a hole in the Hospital's parking lot. Guffy was immediately taken to the Hospital's emergency room where she was treated and released. Guffy filed suit against the Hospital fifty-five days after the accident on November 14, 2002. After filing its answer and conducting discovery, the Hospital filed its motion to dismiss Guffy's complaint based on her failure to substantially comply with the notice requirements of the MTCA. The Hospital argued that no written notice or letter was ever provided as required by Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(2).

¶ 4. The record does not contain any written notice from Guffy to the chief executive officer of this governmental entity or anyone else. Likewise, Guffy does not demonstrate that written notice was provided to the Hospital under Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(2). Guffy contended that she substantially complied with the notice requirements based on a conversation she had with the risk manager at the Hospital to review her emergency room medical bill. Guffy also contends the Hospital was on notice because her attorney requested her medical records from the Hospital and informed an insurance adjuster that Guffy intended to file suit against the Hospital.

¶ 5. In addition to failing to provide any written notice in the record, Guffy filed suit against the Hospital fifty-five days after the accident. As such, Guffy also failed to wait the statutory ninety days after providing notice to file suit against the Hospital. After hearing oral arguments on the Hospital's motion to dismiss, the trial court took the matter under advisement and subsequently entered its order denying the Hospital's motion to dismiss. The trial court found only "that the Defendant's motion is not well taken and should be denied."

¶ 6. The Hospital is now before this Court on interlocutory appeal raising the following issues:

I. Whether Guffy's complaint should have been dismissed for failing to substantially comply with the notice requirements of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(2).

II. Whether Guffy's complaint should have been dismissed for failing to wait the statutory ninety days before filing suit under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11(1).

DISCUSSION

¶ 7. On appeal, the Hospital argues the trial court's judgment denying the Hospital's motion to dismiss for Guffy's failure to comply with the notice requirements of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(2) should be reversed. As such, the Hospital claims Guffy failed to substantially comply with the notice provision of the MTCA. This Court reviews errors of law, including the proper application of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, de novo. Fairley v. George County, 871 So.2d 713, 716 (Miss. 2004); City of Jackson v. Brister, 838 So.2d 274, 277-78 (Miss.2003). "The MTCA is the exclusive remedy for filing a lawsuit against governmental entities and its employees." Id. at 277-78. The standard employed by this Court requires substantial compliance with the notice requirements of the MTCA. McNair v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr., 742 So.2d 1078, 1080 (Miss.1999); Carr v. Town of Shubuta, 733 So.2d 261 (Miss.1999); see also Reaves ex rel. Rouse v. Randall, 729 So.2d 1237, 1240 (Miss.1998) ("When the simple requirements of the Act have been substantially complied with, jurisdiction will attach for purposes of the Act.").

¶ 8. At the hearing on the Hospital's motion to dismiss, Guffy's counsel stated that he spoke and corresponded with the director of the Hospital and with the Hospital's insurance company trying to settle Guffy's claim without filing suit. However, Guffy never produced any documentation or correspondence at the hearing or in the record to demonstrate that any written notice pursuant Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(2) had been provided. The Hospital was not aware of any correspondence. The record is completely devoid of any written notice or any written documentation that could be construed to be written notice under Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(2).

¶ 9. Likewise, Guffy does not provide any details as to when the alleged conversations with the director or the insurance company took place. Counsel for the Hospital stated at the motion hearing that no one from the Hospital, the executive director, Doug Higginbotham, nor any one from the insurance company ever informed Guffy or Guffy's attorney that she did not have to comply with the notice requirements under the MTCA. The record is clear that the complaint was filed fifty-five days after the accident occurred, and the Hospital was served four days later. Therefore, even though no written notice is contained in the record, Guffy clearly did not wait the statutory ninety days before commencing the action against the Hospital.

¶ 10. Guffy argued that the Hospital unduly delayed raising the notice requirement waiting until November 18, 2004, to file its motion to dismiss. The Hospital contended that the MTCA was raised as an affirmative defense in its answer. Also, the Hospital stated at the hearing that its insurance company, Reciprocal of America, went into default and then court-handled liquidation. The liquidation delayed the case while the guaranty fund sorted out the claim's assignment. The counsel for the Hospital testified that the liquidation delayed the case for 2003 and part of 2004.

I. Lack of written notice

¶ 11. On appeal, Guffy does not provide any legal authority in support of her position. Rather, Guffy states that no Mississippi cases can be found similar to the case at hand. Guffy asks this Court in the interest of justice and fairness to affirm the trial court's judgment to deny the Hospital's motion to dismiss. Guffy states that the Hospital received sufficient notice. The Hospital contends that Guffy failed to substantially comply with the notice requirement under Miss.Code Ann. 11-46-11(2).

¶ 12. The MTCA notice statute provides:

Every notice of claim required by subsection (1) of this section shall be in writing, and shall be delivered in person or by registered or certified United States mail. Every notice of claim shall contain a short and plain statement of the facts upon which the claim is based, including the circumstances which brought about the injury, the extent of the injury, the time and place the injury occurred, the names of all persons known to be involved, the amount of money damages sought and the residence of the person making the claim at the time of the injury and at the time of filing the notice.

Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(2) (Rev.2002) (emphasis added).

¶ 13. This Court in 2004 addressed a situation similar to the argument raised by Guffy on appeal regarding Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(2) in Fairley. There this Court distinguished between substantial compliance and non-compliance with the notice provisions of the MTCA, stating:

This Court requires "substantial compliance" with the MTCA notice provisions. See Carr v. Town of Shubuta, 733 So.2d 261 (Miss.1999); Reaves ex rel. Rouse v. Randall, 729 So.2d 1237 (Miss.1998). However, while plaintiffs need only substantially comply with the MTCA notice statute, "we can hardly afford relief under the [MTCA] when there is no effort to comply with the procedural mandates." Little v. Miss. Dep't of Human Servs., 835 So.2d 9, 12-13 (Miss.2002) (emphasis added). That is, "[t]hough substantial compliance with the notice provisions is sufficient, `substantial compliance is not the same as, nor a substitute for, non-compliance.'" Gale v. Thomas, 759 So.2d 1150, 1158 (Miss.1999) (plurality) (quoting Carr v. Town of Shubuta, 733 So.2d 261, 265 (Miss.1999)).

Fairley, 871 So.2d at 716-17 (emphasis added). "`The determination of substantial compliance is a legal, though fact-sensitive, question.'" Id. at 717 (quoting Carr, 733 So.2d at 265).

¶ 14. The Court determined that the letter failed to substantially comply with at least six required notice factors as the "letter was not (1) sent registered mail or certified mail, nor was it delivered in person; (2) did not contain a short and plain statement of the facts with regard to circumstance of injury; (3) did not give the extent of injuries; (4) did not give the name of all persons; (5) did not list the damages sought; and (6) did not give the residence of the claimant." Id. at 718. While the Court in Fairley had a letter to consider in determining whether substantial compliance had occurred, this case is devoid of any letter to examine to determine if any of the required notice factors have been satisfied. However, Fairley made a similar argument as...