Greenwood Leflore Hospital and John F. Lucas, III, In His Representative Capacity v. Roxanne Watson, 324 So.3d 766

Watson underwent thyroid surgery at Greenwood Leflore Hospital (GLH) on May 22, 2017 and alleges medical negligence.
She served a presuit notice on GLH and Dr. Lucas on April 6, 2018 (citing the 60‑day medical‑malpractice statute by mistake) and filed her first complaint on June 5, 2018 (approximately 60 days after notice, not the MTCA's 90 days).
The trial court dismissed the first complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the MTCA’s 90‑day presuit waiting period on January 7, 2019.
Watson refiled an identical complaint on March 14, 2019. GLH moved to dismiss, arguing Watson needed to re‑serve presuit notice and that the one‑year statute of limitations had run.
The trial court denied GLH’s motion; the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding the original valid MTCA notice satisfied the statute and that Watson’s second complaint was timely under the MTCA tolling provisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a second presuit notice was required after the first complaint was dismissed without prejudice	Watson: initial MTCA notice was valid and satisfies the statute; no new notice required	GLH: a new notice must be provided before filing a subsequent suit; reliance on Arceo/Tolliver line	Court: No second notice required where a valid MTCA notice was already given; dismissal of the first suit does not negate the original notice
Whether the 95‑day tolling period under § 11‑46‑11(3) is itself tolled so Watson’s second complaint was timely	Watson: initial notice tolled the one‑year limitations for 95 days; filing the first suit tolled the limitations and remaining toll plus the additional 90 days under § 11‑46‑11(3)(b) made the second filing timely	GLH: premature filing before the 95 days expired does not toll the 95‑day waiting/tolling period and the one‑year period expired before the second suit	Court: The initial notice tolled the one‑year period for 95 days; the first suit tolled the limitations; after dismissal Watson retained remaining tolling and filed within the additional time allowed under § 11‑46‑11(3)(b); second complaint was timely

Arceo v. Tolliver, 19 So. 3d 67 (Miss. 2009) (discusses mandatory presuit written‑notice requirement under medical‑malpractice statute)
Reaves ex rel. Rouse v. Randall, 729 So. 2d 1237 (Miss. 1998) (purpose of MTCA notice is to inform governmental entities of claims)
Pitalo v. GPCH‑GP, Inc., 933 So. 2d 927 (Miss. 2006) (legislative notice requirements are mandatory with no exceptions)
Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Easterling, 928 So. 2d 815 (Miss. 2006) (strict application of presuit notice requirements)
Price v. Clark, 21 So. 3d 509 (Miss. 2009) (a properly filed and served complaint tolls the statute of limitations)
Lane v. Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 220 So. 3d 254 (Miss. 2017) (explains policy behind presuit notice and waiting periods for governmental entities)