Howard R. Holaday, Jr. v. Kyle Moore
2015 Miss. LEXIS 206
| Miss. | 2015Background
- Kyle Moore presented to St. Dominic ER on May 23, 2004; an MRI that night showed an epidural abscess and surgery followed the next morning. Plaintiffs allege delay caused neurological injury.
- Dr. Holaday’s name appears in the records as the neurosurgeon contacted; he testified he gave limited advice (recommended MRI/transfer) and was not on call or treating Moore. ER physicians (Drs. Stout and Hatten) later gave deposition testimony contradicting Holaday, saying he agreed to come and participate.
- The Moores filed a malpractice suit against other providers in 2006; Dr. Holaday was added as a defendant in March 2011 after later depositions. Plaintiffs had earlier retained an expert (Dr. Stringer) who, after speaking with Holaday, concluded Holaday was not negligent; that informed plaintiffs’ decision not to sue Holaday initially.
- Holaday moved for summary judgment asserting the two-year statute of limitations had run. The trial court denied summary judgment, finding genuine factual disputes about Holaday’s involvement and that the discovery rule (and possibly fraudulent concealment) could toll the limitations period.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding that whether the discovery rule or fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations presents jury questions (credibility and when plaintiffs reasonably could have discovered Holaday’s role).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery rule tolled statute of limitations for claim against Holaday | Discovery rule applies because plaintiffs reasonably did not know (and could not have discovered with diligence) Holaday’s alleged greater involvement until later depositions | Plaintiffs knew Holaday’s identity from records; Holaday’s name in records and plaintiffs’ pre-suit investigation put them on notice so limitations ran | Tolling under the discovery rule is a fact question for jury; trial court properly denied summary judgment |
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolls limitations | Holaday’s denials to plaintiffs’ expert and others were affirmative acts that concealed his involvement and prevented discovery; plaintiffs exercised due diligence | No fraudulent concealment because plaintiffs had records and could have discovered discrepancies earlier | Existence of fraudulent concealment and plaintiffs’ due diligence are factual issues for jury; cannot be resolved on summary judgment |
| Whether plaintiffs could have amended earlier / relation back under Rule 15 | Adding Holaday was proper after depositions revealed disputed facts; amendment should be allowed | Plaintiffs knew Holaday’s identity and chose not to sue; Rule 15(c) relation-back and Rule 15(b)/(9)(h) do not save untimely addition | Court declined to resolve Rule 15 alternative (finding discovery-rule holding dispositive) but noted Rule 15 issues were not necessary to reach given factual disputes |
| Whether summary judgment appropriate on merits (no negligence) | Plaintiffs contend facts and expert testimony raise negligence issues | Holaday argued no evidence of negligence or causation | Trial court correctly denied summary judgment because genuine disputes of material fact exist; remanded for jury resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Huss v. Gayden, 991 So.2d 162 (Miss. 2008) (explains discovery rule standard in medical-malpractice cases)
- Sutherland v. Estate of Ritter, 959 So.2d 1004 (Miss. 2007) (discovery rule does not toll when plaintiff knew who and how he was injured)
- Phillips 66 Co. v. Lofton, 94 So.3d 1051 (Miss. 2012) (discovery of injury is an issue of fact when genuine dispute exists)
- Wright v. Quesnel, 876 So.2d 362 (Miss. 2004) (discovery rule will not toll where plaintiff had enough information to know negligence likely occurred)
- Wayne Gen. Hosp. v. Hayes, 868 So.2d 997 (Miss. 2004) (plaintiff had notice of possible negligence based on available medical evidence)
- Robinson v. Cobb, 763 So.2d 883 (Miss. 2000) (fraudulent concealment doctrine tolls limitations; applies to any cause of action)
- Channel v. Loyacono, 954 So.2d 415 (Miss. 2007) (two-part test for fraudulent concealment: affirmative concealment and due diligence)
- Smith v. Sanders, 485 So.2d 1051 (Miss. 1986) (discovery rule framework for accrual when cause of action is discovered)
- Whitaker v. Limeco Corp., 32 So.3d 429 (Miss. 2010) (both fraudulent concealment elements are jury questions)