Manning v. King's Daughters Medical Center
138 So. 3d 109
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Manning’s May 16, 2008 emergency room visit at KDMC allegedly caused injuries due to KDMC negligence.
- On May 7, 2010, KDMC received a pre-suit notice letter under Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-36(15) from Felder on Manning’s behalf.
- Manning, pro se, filed suit on July 14, 2010; Felder drafted but did not sign the complaint.
- Manning did not attach a pre-suit expert certificate due to § 11-1-58(d) exemption for unrepresented plaintiffs.
- Service occurred November 10, 2010; KDMC’s later attempts to serve Manning faced non-delivery and address issues.
- Two-year period of little to no participation by Manning led KDMC to move to dismiss under Rule 41(b) or for summary judgment; Felder later entered appearance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Manning argued evidence (doctor affidavit) created a material issue. | KDMC contends conduct/summary judgment should reflect dismissal; gamesmanship vitiates issues. | Summary judgment improper; dismissal under Rule 41(b) affirmed. |
| Whether failure to consult a physician before filing justified dismissal | Section 11-1-58 does not apply to pro se plaintiffs. | Defendant argues gamesmanship to avoid pre-suit requirements. | Issue misframed; court treated Manning as pro se and did not base on failure to consult. |
| Whether the dismissal under Rule 41(b) was proper | Delay alone not sufficient for dismissal; lesser sanctions should have been considered. | Two-year delay and lack of participation justify dismissal with prejudice. | Court did not abuse its discretion; dismissal with prejudice affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holder v. Orange Grove Med. Specialties, 54 So.3d 192 (Miss.2010) (delay and aggravating factors may justify dismissal with prejudice)
- Beck v. Sapet, 937 So.2d 945 (Miss.2006) (motion to compel and discovery sanctions framework)
- Caracci v. Int'l Paper Co., 699 So.2d 546 (Miss.1997) (motion to compel as prerequisite to sanctions for discovery noncompliance)
- Hillman v. Weatherly, 14 So.3d 721 (Miss.2009) (reactionary delay supports finding of clear record of delay)
- Cox v. Cox, 976 So.2d 869 (Miss.2008) (delay may support presumed prejudice; lesser sanctions discussed)