Nelson v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-North Mississippi, Inc., 2011 Miss. LEXIS 448

In 2001, a baby died and in 2003 the Nelsons filed a wrongful-death action against Baptist Memorial Hospital–North Mississippi, Clinic, and Doctors alleging medical negligence.
Summonses were issued in 2003; after a 90-day extension to serve, process was reissued in 2004 with returns showing service on Candace Hogue, the Clinic/Doctors' office manager.
The Clinic and Doctors moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, improper service; they asserted Hogue was not an authorized agent for service.
The trial court ruled that Hogue was not an agent and that service was deficient, timing out the statute of limitations.
On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case without prejudice on other grounds and did not rule on service; on remand the court addressed service.
The Mississippi Supreme Court held that service on Hogue was ineffective because she was not an authorized agent, tolling did not apply, and the action against the Clinic and Doctors was time-barred, warranting dismissal with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was service on the Clinic/Doctors valid via office manager?	Nelsons: Hogue accepted process; proper under Rule 4.	Clinic/Doctors: Hogue not authorized agent; service defective.	Service defective; Hogue not an agent; dismissal with prejudice proper.
Is Hogue an agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service?	Hogue was authorized by practice to accept service.	Hogue lacked actual authority and did not know of the suit.	Hogue not an authorized agent; no valid service.
Should the appellate court have addressed service in Nelson II?	Issue preserved; Court of Appeals should consider service.	Court of Appeals did not consider service issue previously; proper on remand.	Court properly focused on service issue; affirmed the trial court's view that service was deficient.
Did tolling render the first complaint timely notwithstanding deficient service?	Original filing tolled limitations when service presumed proper.	Defect in service nullified tolling; timeline continued.	Tolling did not save the action; statute expired.
Should the action be dismissed with prejudice due to improper service?	Dismissal without prejudice would permit refile with proper service.	Defect requires dismissal with prejudice due to time-bar.	Dismissal with prejudice affirmed; judgment reversed in part as to appellate posture.

Williams v. Kilgore, 618 So. 2d 51 (Miss. 1992) (office manager can be an agent if apparent authority is shown)
Johnson v. Rao, 952 So. 2d 151 (Miss. 2007) (receptionist lacks apparent authority; trial court resolves questions of apparent authority)
Crumpton v. Hegwood, 740 So. 2d 292 (Miss. 1999) (tolls the statute only for specified extension; proper service required)