319 So.3d 1086
Miss.2021Background
- Plaintiff Robert McGowen filed suit in Sept. 2019 alleging sexual abuse by Father John Scanlon at Sacred Heart Catholic Church when plaintiff was 12–13 (1984–85).
- McGowen alleges he repressed memories of the abuse and only recalled them in Dec. 2018; he began therapy in Jan. 2019 and treating clinician diagnosed PTSD and opined the abuse recollection was credible.
- Defendants (Sacred Heart and the Diocese) moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as barred by the statute of limitations (Miss. Code § 15-1-49).
- The Forrest County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, concluding the claims were time-barred. McGowen appealed.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court (majority) reversed and remanded, holding that, accepting the complaint’s allegations, the discovery rule could apply to latent injuries (including alleged repressed-memory injury) and dismissal at the Rule 12 stage was erroneous.
- A dissent argued the discovery rule does not apply because the alleged abuse consisted of physical acts of which a child would be aware when they occurred, and therefore the complaint was properly dismissed as time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery rule (§ 15-1-49(2)) applies where plaintiff alleges repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse | McGowen: repressed memories constitute a latent injury; cause of action accrued when he recalled in Dec. 2018 | Defendants: alleged acts were physical and discoverable at the time; repressed-memory tolling is not recognized and would undermine statute-of-limitations policy | Majority: complaint alleges latent injury and must be accepted as true on Rule 12(b)(6); discovery rule may apply and the dismissal was improper; remanded for factual determination |
| Whether dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) was appropriate given the statute-of-limitations defense | McGowen: factual allegation of delayed discovery defeats facial statute-of-limitations dismissal | Defendants: claims are time-barred on their face; reasonable minds could not differ that plaintiff knew or should have known the injury earlier | Court: on a 12(b)(6) review, allegations of delayed discovery suffice to survive dismissal; factual issues remain for later proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson, 947 So. 2d 983 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (held discovery rule did not apply where abuse involved physical acts of which victim was generally aware at the time)
- PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. v. Lowery, 909 So. 2d 47 (Miss. 2005) (latent-injury requirement for applying discovery rule)
- F & S Sand, Inc. v. Stringfellow, 265 So. 3d 170 (Miss. 2019) (statute-of-limitations accrual can be fact question; no bright-line rule)
- Angle v. Koppers, Inc., 42 So. 3d 1 (Miss. 2010) (accrual upon discovery of injury, not of its cause)
- Donald v. Amoco Prod. Co., 735 So. 2d 161 (Miss. 1999) (definition of latent injury tied to secretive or inherently undiscoverable wrongdoing)
- Williams v. Kilgore, 618 So. 2d 51 (Miss. 1992) (example of classic latent medical injury)
- Travis v. Ziter, 681 So. 2d 1348 (Ala. 1996) (rejected repressed-memory tolling and affirmed limitations bar)
- S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (Texas Supreme Court rejected extending discovery rule based on repressed memory)