316 So.3d 208
Miss. Ct. App.2021Background
- Michael Wood sued Dr. George Reynolds and TrustCare (later substituted by Township TC Heart, LLC) alleging he was billed for a nuclear stress test (Lexiscan) on October 13, 2017 that was not performed, and that his signature on records was forged; collection of the $1,030 bill harmed his credit.
- Defendants produced clinical notes, a signed instruction form (Oct. 3, 2017), Oct. 13, 2017 progress notes, a consent form, Lexiscan results, affidavits from a nurse and technologist asserting the test was administered (including times radioisotope given), and a billing-system screenshot showing Wood’s card was declined on Oct. 13.
- Wood submitted an affidavit asserting he cancelled the Oct. 13 appointment, that the Oct. 13 records were fraudulent and his signature forged, and that his card would have been accepted.
- The circuit court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Wood’s claims with prejudice; defendants’ requests for fees were denied (no cross-appeal on that denial).
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding Wood’s affidavit created a genuine issue of material fact about whether he received the Oct. 13 treatment; the court declined to resolve the statute-of-limitations question and left it to the circuit court on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists about whether Wood received the Oct. 13, 2017 Lexiscan | Wood says he cancelled the appointment, the Oct. 13 records are fraudulent, and his signature was forged | Defendants rely on contemporaneous medical records, consent and instruction forms, staff affidavits, and billing records showing a declined card on Oct. 13 | Reversed: Wood’s affidavit raises a genuine issue for trial about whether the test was performed |
| Whether Wood’s claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations (Miss. Code § 15-1-35) | Wood contends he first learned of the debt/claim in June 2018 (receipt of a May 30, 2018 collection letter), so suit filed April 2019 is timely | Defendants point to alleged assignment/collection activity around March 7, 2018 and argue suit filed more than one year later is untimely | Not decided on appeal by majority; remand permitted for trial court to consider. (Concurring/dissenting opinion would resolve and reject defendants’ SOL defense on present record.) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. R.M. Smith Investments L.P., 210 So. 3d 555 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (summary-judgment standard and evidence viewed for nonmovant)
- Miller v. Meyers, 38 So. 3d 648 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (opponent must produce significant probative evidence to create genuine issue)
- McMichael v. Nu-Way Steel & Supply Inc., 563 So. 2d 1371 (Miss. 1990) (summary-judgment rebuttal burden explained)
- Trigg v. Farese, 266 So. 3d 611 (Miss. 2018) (when a cause of action accrues for statute-of-limitations purposes)
- Weathers v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 14 So. 3d 688 (Miss. 2009) (statute begins to run when all elements of the tort are present)
- Bullard v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 941 So. 2d 812 (Miss. 2006) (accrual principles for tort claims)
- Brent v. Mathis, 154 So. 3d 842 (Miss. 2014) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Smith v. Sanders, 485 So. 2d 1051 (Miss. 1986) (statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and burden rests on asserting party)
- Horton ex rel. Estate of Erves v. City of Vicksburg, 268 So. 3d 504 (Miss. 2018) (appellate court must affirm summary judgment if any preserved ground supports it)
- Empire Abrasive Equip. Corp. v. Morgan, 87 So. 3d 455 (Miss. 2012) (cross-appeal not required to urge alternative grounds for affirmance)
- Latham v. Latham, 261 So. 3d 1110 (Miss. 2019) (procedure for requesting appellate attorney’s fees)
- Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep’t of Health, 749 So. 2d 1017 (Miss. 1999) (procedural bar on issues not cross-appealed)