Gorton v. Rance
2011 Miss. LEXIS 62
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Ranee sued Dr. Gorton, Dr. Thomas, HCMH, and John Does 1-5 in Humphreys County for wrongful death of Dexter Jordan, Jr. and argued MTCA applicability; MTCA notice and one-year statute of limitations were raised as defenses.
- Gorton moved for summary judgment, claiming he was employed by Greenwood Leflore Hospital (GLH), a MTCA-covered government entity, making MTCA immunity applicable and tolling/notice issues relevant.
- Jordan was admitted to HCMH on August 7-8, 2007; treatment involved Gorton; Jordan died of pneumonia after discussions of care, with his death occurring on HCMH grounds.
- Ranee served MTCA notice on HCMH on July 1, 2008, and filed suit on November 5, 2008; Gorton’s status as GLH employee was later asserted as a bar to her claims.
- The circuit court denied summary judgment; the MS Supreme Court held GLH employee status existed on the pertinent dates, giving MTCA immunity, and that notice and statute-of-limitations defenses barred the suit; the borrowed-servant issue was considered and found in favor of GLH on the majority view.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Gorton an employee of a MTCA-covered public hospital on Aug. 7-8, 2007? | Ranee disputed ongoing GLH employment status and argued no genuine issue. | GLH documents showed continuous employment of Gorton through Oct. 2007, with duties at HCMH. | No genuine issue; Gorton was GLH’s employee and MTCA applicable. |
| Did Ranee provide proper MTCA notice to GLH prior to suit? | Notice to HCMH should be sufficient due to contractual relationships/constructive notice. | Strict compliance with 90-day notice to GLH is required; no notice to GLH occurred. | Ranee failed to provide required notice to GLH; MTCA notice not satisfied. |
| Did MTCA tolling apply to extend the statute of limitations? | Notice tolling could extend the one-year period. | Tolling does not apply without proper notice to GLH. | Statute of limitations expired; claim barred. |
| Does the borrowed-servant doctrine apply to MTCA claims here? | Gorton was the borrowed servant of HCMH and liable under MTCA through HCMH. | Borrowed-servant doctrine is not applicable to MTCA claims in this context. | Borrowed-servant doctrine not applicable; majority rejects; summary judgment affirmed on that basis. |
| If borrowed-servant doctrine applies, does it affect notice or limitations? | Not applicable here since doctrine would bring HCMH within MTCA. | Even if considered, doctrine does not override MTCA notice or limitations. | Not dispositive; MTCA requirements stand and favor GLH. |
Key Cases Cited
- Easterling, 928 So.2d 815 (Miss.2006) (strict compliance with MTCA notice requirements)
- Ivy v. GMAC, 612 So.2d 1108 (Miss.1992) (strict compliance with notice requirements)
- Price v. Clark, 21 So.3d 509 (Miss.2009) (strict compliance with statutory notice)
- Quick Change Oil and Lube v. Rogers, 663 So.2d 585 (Miss.1995) (borrowed-servant three-part test)
- Ray v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., Inc., 388 So.2d 166 (Miss.1980) (dual employment concept and control aspects)
- Aseme, 583 So.2d 955 (Miss.1991) (staff privileges do not equal employment contract)
- Sullivan v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp.-Golden Triangle, Inc., 722 So.2d 675 (Miss.1998) (physician staff privileges and employment distinctions)
- Tillis v. State, 43 So.3d 1127 (Miss.2010) (dual employment and borrowed-servant considerations in a different context)