Pioneer Community Hospital of Newton v. Tyteanna D. Roberts
214 So. 3d 259
| Miss. | 2017Background
- Tina Roberts died July 23, 2010, leaving two minor daughters: Tyteanna (b. 1993) and Breanna (b. 2001).
- In August 2012 Tina’s sister, Theresa Ellis, filed petitions seeking guardianship and authority to prosecute claims for the minors; chancery court entered an order authorizing Ellis to prosecute for Tyteanna but no letters of guardianship or oath were ever issued and the petitions were dismissed in May 2013.
- Ellis’s attorney sent a notice-of-claim letter to defendants on July 31, 2012; no wrongful-death suit was ever filed by Ellis.
- Tyteanna turned 21 on July 30, 2014; she sent notice letters in December 2014 and filed a wrongful-death complaint on May 4, 2015 on behalf of herself and Breanna.
- Defendants (Pioneer Hospital and Dr. Boka) moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing the action was time-barred because tolling ended when Ellis acted (or existed) as a person qualified to sue; the circuit court denied the motion and the defendants sought interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Mississippi Code §15‑1‑59 (minors savings clause) toll the statute of limitations for a wrongful‑death action? | Yes — the savings clause applies to wrongful‑death claims and tolled the two‑year medical‑malpractice limitations until Tyteanna reached majority. | No — relying on Curry, the savings clause should not apply where a person exists who is qualified to bring the wrongful‑death suit. | Held: §15‑1‑59 applies to wrongful‑death actions; Thiroux controls. Tolling applied until Tyteanna reached majority. |
| Does the mere existence of an adult (Ellis) with statutory standing prevent tolling under Curry? | No — Ellis never filed a wrongful‑death suit; mere existence does not defeat the savings clause. | Yes — Ellis was statutorily authorized to sue (as sister), so tolling should not apply. | Held: Overrules the portion of Curry holding mere existence defeats tolling. Only if a qualified adult actually files a wrongful‑death suit does the one‑suit rule bar tolling for minors. |
| Did Ellis’s July 31, 2012 notice letter or the October 29, 2012 guardianship order start the running of the statute (i.e., remove the disability)? | No — Ellis was never in fact appointed guardian with letters issued, so §15‑1‑59 remained in effect. | Yes — defendants contend Ellis’s actions (notice/guardian order) removed the disability and started limitations. | Held: Neither event began limitations. Because no completed guardianship/letters were in place, the minors’ disability remained until Tyteanna reached majority. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate (i.e., is the suit time‑barred)? | Tyteanna filed within two years of reaching majority, so the suit is timely; summary judgment should be denied. | The suit is time‑barred under defendants’ tolling theory; summary judgment should be granted. | Held: Summary judgment was properly denied; the suit is timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thiroux ex rel. Cruz v. Austin ex rel. Arceneaux, 749 So. 2d 1040 (Miss. 1999) (savings clause applies to wrongful‑death actions)
- Curry v. Turner, 832 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 2002) (one‑suit rule and tension with minors savings clause where an adult qualified plaintiff actually filed suit)
- Arender v. Smith County Hospital, 431 So. 2d 491 (Miss. 1983) (earlier decision holding minors savings clause did not apply to wrongful death — later disapproved)
- U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Conservatorship of Melson, 809 So. 2d 647 (Miss. 2002) (where a guardian/conservator is in fact appointed, the action may be brought by that guardian without applying the savings clause)
- Lee v. Thompson, 859 So. 2d 981 (Miss. 2003) (discusses interaction of §15‑1‑59 and commencement of suits by others)
- Anderson v. R & D Foods, Inc., 913 So. 2d 394 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (applies Curry to hold a filed wrongful‑death action benefits all entitled parties)