Jimi Mosely v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-Golden Triangle, Inc.
2015-CA-01380-COA
| Miss. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Gerboria Mayfield died on August 23, 2011, days after a cesarean section at Baptist Memorial Hospital–Golden Triangle (BMH‑GT).
- On October 22, 2013 (after providing presuit notice Aug. 21, 2013), Mosely (estate representative) sued Dr. Gregory Childrey and BMH‑GT alleging medical negligence; the claim against BMH‑GT alleged respondeat superior and failed to plead proximate causation.
- BMH‑GT moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the court granted dismissal without prejudice (May 2014) and entered a scheduling order allowing amendment by June 1, 2014.
- Mosely moved to amend to rejoin BMH‑GT on September 3, 2014 (after the scheduling deadline); the trial court denied the motion as untimely.
- Mosely filed a separate action (Mosely II) on November 4, 2014 naming BMH‑GT and two nurses (Gilliam and Adams‑Hall) but did not give presuit notice to the nurses; the trial court dismissed Mosely II with prejudice on statute‑of‑limitations grounds.
- Mosely appealed denial of amendment in Mosely I, the denial of consolidation, and the dismissal with prejudice in Mosely II; the Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals and affirmed the trial court on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying Mosely's motion to amend Mosely I to rejoin BMH‑GT | Mosely argued she should be allowed to amend to cure the pleading defect after dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) | BMH‑GT argued amendment was untimely and prejudicial given the scheduling order and delay | Denied: court did not abuse discretion; motion filed months after scheduling deadline and undue delay barred amendment |
| Whether Mosely II (new suit naming nurses and BMH‑GT) was barred by the two‑year statute of limitations and lack of presuit notice | Mosely argued dismissal should be without prejudice and relied on the savings statute to permit timely filing | Defendants argued no presuit notice was provided to the nurses and the statute expired; employer barred where liability rests solely on respondeat superior | Granted dismissal with prejudice: nurses’ claims time‑barred; BMH‑GT barred because claim was solely respondeat superior and employees’ limitations expired |
| Whether the Mississippi savings statute (§15‑1‑69) saves Mosely II | Mosely argued the savings statute applied because an earlier timely action existed | Defendants: savings statute does not save claims never filed within the limitations period (the nurses) and does not revive an action where amendment was denied for undue delay | Rejected: savings statute does not save claims against nurses not timely sued; does not cure denial to amend for undue delay |
| Whether Rule 9(h) allows substitution/joining of identified nurses into Mosely I | Mosely contended Rule 9(h) permits amendment to identify fictitious parties and join the nurses | Defendants: Mosely did not plead fictitious defendants or seek 9(h) amendment timely; she filed a separate action instead | Rejected: Rule 9(h) inapplicable because original complaint did not name fictitious parties and no timely Rule 9(h) amendment was sought |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Braswell, 930 So. 2d 387 (Miss. 2006) (standards for denying motions to amend)
- Moeller v. Am. Guar. and Liab. Ins., 812 So. 2d 953 (Miss. 2002) (factors for denying amendment: undue delay, prejudice, futility)
- Hartford Cas. Ins. v. Halliburton Co., 826 So. 2d 1206 (Miss. 2001) (untimely motion to amend properly denied after scheduling deadline)
- Fletcher v. Lyles, 999 So. 2d 1271 (Miss. 2008) (statute‑of‑limitations review is de novo)
- Arceo v. Tolliver, 19 So. 3d 67 (Miss. 2009) (presuit notice requirement and effect on dismissal with/without prejudice)
- Lowery v. Statewide Healthcare Serv., Inc., 585 So. 2d 778 (Miss. 1991) (statute‑of‑limitations against agent bars same claim against principal when liability is solely vicarious)
- Carpenter v. Kenneth Thompson Builder Inc., 186 So. 3d 820 (Miss. 2014) (claim‑splitting doctrine prohibits filing a second action to avoid procedural bar)
- Poindexter v. Southern United Fire Ins. Co., 838 So. 2d 964 (Miss. 2003) (discussion of Rule 15 amendment timing requirements)