369 So.3d 534
Miss.2023Background
- Jackie Aycock underwent major jaw surgery at UMMC on Feb. 7, 2020 and alleges permanent left-arm/shoulder injury from improper intraoperative positioning.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a notice of claim on Dec. 16, 2020 to four UMMC employees (Wilson, Henderson, Pierce, William Smith) but did not serve UMMC’s CEO, Dr. LouAnn Woodward.
- UMMC acknowledged receipt by letter on Dec. 23, 2020, investigated, and formally denied the claim on Feb. 23, 2021.
- Plaintiffs sued on Mar. 8, 2021 (more than one year after the surgery); UMMC moved for summary judgment asserting the one-year MTCA limitations period was not tolled because the statutorily required notice was not served on the CEO.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed that strict compliance about whom to serve is mandatory but may be excused by waiver or equitable estoppel, and remanded for factual resolution of those defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the notice tolled the one-year MTCA limitations period despite not being served on the entity's CEO | Aycocks: UMMC received and acted on the notice; acknowledgment and investigation show actual notice so limitations should be tolled | UMMC: Statute requires service only on the chief executive officer; absence of service on CEO means no tolling and claims are time-barred | The court: Service on the CEO is a mandatory requirement; however, noncompliance can be excused by waiver or equitable estoppel, so factual issues remain for trial |
| Whether equitable estoppel can excuse failure to serve the CEO | Aycocks: UMMC’s acknowledgment, investigation, inconsistent org charts, and communications induced reliance, causing prejudice | UMMC: Acknowledgment merely confirmed receipt and reserved rights; no misrepresentation or inequitable conduct occurred | The court: Equitable estoppel is available under Stuart and may apply; the record contains genuine factual disputes about reliance and prejudice, so estoppel is a triable issue |
| Whether waiver can excuse the defective service of notice | Aycocks: UMMC’s conduct and investigation waived any objection to defective service | UMMC: Receipt by other employees does not satisfy the statute and does not constitute waiver | The court: Waiver is available in principle under Stuart, and whether waiver occurred is a fact question that precludes summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Stuart v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr., 21 So.3d 544 (Miss. 2009) (MTCA notice requirements are nonjurisdictional and therefore waivable/equitable-relief-eligible)
- Tallahatchie Gen. Hosp. v. Howe, 49 So.3d 86 (Miss. 2010) (strict compliance required as to whom notice is sent)
- Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Easterling, 928 So.2d 815 (Miss. 2006) (ninety-day presuit waiting period is strictly enforced)
- Trosclair v. Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 757 So.2d 178 (Miss. 2000) (equitable estoppel may bar assertion of MTCA notice defects when evidence supports reasonable reliance)
- Burnett v. Hinds Cnty. ex rel. Bd. of Supervisors, 313 So.3d 471 (Miss. 2020) (failure to serve the statutorily designated official requires dismissal absent a defense)
- Dobbs v. City of Columbus, 285 So.3d 1219 (Miss. 2019) (notice served on wrong official does not satisfy MTCA requirements)
- Tallahatchie Gen. Hosp. v. Howe, 154 So.3d 29 (Miss. 2015) (sovereign immunity and MTCA waiver principles reiterated)