F & S Sand, Inc. v. Stringfellow, 265 So. 3d 170

Plaintiff Ted Stringfellow filed a silica-related complaint on September 26, 2016 alleging complicated silicosis and related conditions from sandblasting exposure across several states.
Defendants moved for summary judgment and transfer of venue on May 15, 2017, arguing the claim was time-barred and venue improper.
Medical records show visits for cough/shortness of breath in Nov. 2007 and May 2008, chest x‑rays/CTs noting bronchitis and findings “consistent with pneumoconiosis (such as silicosis...),” and a disability submission including similar records.
Plaintiff contends he lacked knowledge of silicosis until diagnosis in Oct. 2014 and failed to follow recommended pulmonology follow‑up because symptoms subsided.
Trial court denied summary judgment as premature; on interlocutory appeal the Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed accrual under the discovery rule and reversed, holding the claim time‑barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the claim is time‑barred under the discovery rule	Stringfellow lacked knowledge of the alleged injury (complicated silicosis) until 2014 diagnosis	Medical visits, imaging, disability filings, and occupational context put Stringfellow on notice well before 2013 so the 3‑year period expired	Court held claim accrued when plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury pre‑dating Sept. 26, 2013; claim is time‑barred; summary judgment rendered for defendants
Whether accrual requires knowledge of cause	Plaintiff: accrual should await diagnosis linking injury to silica	Defendants: accrual occurs when plaintiff knew of the injury itself; cause not required	Court reaffirmed accrual on discovery of injury, not discovery of cause
Whether accrual is a jury question here	Plaintiff: fact question for jury because records are ambiguous and follow‑up didn’t occur; summary judgment inappropriate	Defendants: reasonable minds could not differ that records and circumstances gave notice	Court: resolved as matter of law—reasonable minds could not differ—removed issue from jury
Venue transfer (related interlocutory issue)	Plaintiff implied venue proper in Jefferson County	Defendants moved to transfer venue	Court found venue issue moot after statute‑of‑limitations ruling

Am. Optical Corp. v. Rankin, 227 So.3d 1062 (Miss. 2017) (discovery rule triggered by earlier treatment for lung disease rather than later expert silicosis diagnosis)
PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. v. Lowery, 909 So.2d 47 (Miss. 2005) (discovery rule depends on plaintiff's knowledge and diligence; medical attention may indicate knowledge)
Ridgway Lane & Assocs., Inc. v. Watson, 189 So.3d 626 (Miss. 2016) (‘‘beginnings’’ of disease on records may be insufficient to take accrual from the jury)
Raddin v. Manchester Educ. Found., 175 So.3d 1243 (Miss. 2015) (plaintiff cannot hide behind discovery rule when reasonable minds could not differ that information sufficed to sue)
Wayne Gen. Hosp. v. Hayes, 868 So.2d 997 (Miss. 2004) (plaintiff must be reasonably diligent in investigating a latent injury to invoke discovery rule)
Andrus v. Ellis, 887 So.2d 175 (Miss. 2004) (standard of review for legal questions like statutes of limitation is de novo)