Gertrude Brooks v. The Landmark Nursing Center, Inc.
230 So. 3d 1032
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gertrude Brooks sued Landmark Nursing Center for wrongful death, alleging negligent care of her husband Leroy while a resident in late 2011–early 2012.
- Landmark served requests for admissions, interrogatories, and document requests on June 5, 2014; Brooks never answered, so under M.R.C.P. 36(a) the requests were deemed admitted on July 8, 2014.
- Landmark moved for summary judgment (Aug. 15, 2014) based on the deemed admissions that Landmark complied with the standard of care and was not negligent; Brooks did not respond for months.
- Brooks filed a Rule 36(b) motion to withdraw admissions and a response to summary judgment in December 2014, claiming a paralegal misfiled the requests and her office suffered staffing disruptions; she never actually served answers to the requests.
- The circuit court denied Brooks’s Rule 36(b) motion as an unjustified delay and granted summary judgment to Landmark based on the dispositive deemed admissions; Brooks appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Rule 36(a): whether requests asking that defendant complied with standard of care impermissibly seek conclusions of law | Brooks: requests sought conclusions of law and were beyond Rule 36(a)’s proper scope | Landmark: Rule 36(a) permits statements or opinions of fact or application of law to fact; such requests are permissible | Court: Procedurally barred on appeal and, on precedent, such requests are permissible under Rule 36(a); argument has no merit |
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying motion to withdraw admissions under Rule 36(b) | Brooks: motion should be granted because withdrawal would allow adjudication on merits and no prejudice to Landmark; delay excused by paralegal error and staff loss | Landmark: Brooks’ long unexplained delay (months after being notified) and failure to ever serve answers justified denial; prejudice and finality concerns | Court: No abuse of discretion; delay was unreasonable, no justifiable excuse, and deemed admissions were dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole ex rel. Cole v. Buckner, 819 So. 2d 527 (Miss. 2002) (requests that treatment complied with standard of care are permissible under Rule 36 and deemed admissions can be dispositive)
- Young v. Smith, 67 So. 3d 732 (Miss. 2011) (motions to withdraw admissions properly denied where no justifiable excuse exists)
- DeBlanc v. Stancil, 814 So. 2d 796 (Miss. 2002) (Rule 36 harshness may be ameliorated by court’s power to permit withdrawal, but rule must be enforced)
- Langley ex rel. Langley v. Miles, 956 So. 2d 970 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court within discretion to deny withdrawal where counsel failed to timely correct default after impediment ended)
- Sanford v. Dudley, 196 So. 3d 1106 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (contrasting authority where withdrawal was granted for prompt correction of default and excusable misunderstanding)