University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Kim Hampton, 227 So. 3d 1138

Background

Kimrick Smith was stabbed on Oct. 30, 2010, treated and released by UMC; he died Nov. 8, 2010 from an undetected heart wound. Plaintiff Kim Hampton learned of the heart injury by Nov. 12, 2010 at the latest.
Hampton gave pre-suit notice to UMC on Nov. 7, 2011; a 95-day statutory tolling period after notice expired Feb. 10, 2012; UMC denied the claim Feb. 28, 2012.
Counting the remaining 5 days of the original year plus the post-tolling 90-day filing window, the limitations period expired May 15, 2012. Hampton filed pro se on May 29, 2012 (14 days late).
UMC pleaded the statute-of-limitations defense in its answer, sought discovery (moved to compel), and later moved for summary judgment after Hampton’s deposition (where discovery date was disclosed). The trial court denied summary judgment and awarded Hampton $500,000 after a bench trial.
On appeal UMC argued the suit was time-barred and that it had not waived the statute-of-limitations defense; the court resolved the case on the limitations question and reversed and rendered for UMC.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hampton’s MTCA claim was filed within the statute of limitations	Hampton argued tolling and statutory interpretation made her May 29, 2012 filing timely	UMC argued the tolled period ended Feb. 10, 2012, so plaintiff’s filing expired May 15, 2012 and suit was 14 days late	Court held claim was untimely; filing was 14 days after limitations expired and barred
Proper interpretation of § 11-46-11(3) re: when the 90-day post-tolling window begins	Hampton contended Page dicta and older statute support running from toll expiration or later denial	UMC relied on Page and the 2012 legislative amendment clarifying that the 90 days runs from toll expiration (or denial, whichever first)	Court applied Page and the 2012 clarification: toll ended Feb. 10, 2012; remaining days counted from that date
Whether UMC waived the statute-of-limitations defense by delayed motion practice	Hampton argued UMC’s delayed summary-judgment motion and participation in discovery waived the defense	UMC argued it pleaded the defense, lacked facts to press it until plaintiff’s deposition, and promptly moved after obtaining necessary facts	Court held UMC did not waive the defense; delay was reasonable given need to develop discovery to prove the defense
Whether trial-court evidentiary issues (expert testimony) require remand	Hampton argued trial evidence supported liability; UMC challenged expert testimony	UMC argued errors in plaintiffs’ expert testimony (raised alternative grounds)	Court did not reach evidentiary challenges because it reversed on statute-of-limitations grounds

Key Cases Cited

Page v. Univ. of S. Miss., 878 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 2004) (interpreting MTCA tolling and counting remaining days after tolling)
Caves v. Yarbrough, 991 So.2d 142 (Miss. 2008) (discovery rule applies to MTCA wrongful-death claims)
MS Credit Ctr. v. Horton, 926 So.2d 167 (Miss. 2006) (delay in asserting affirmative defenses can constitute waiver; eight-month rule guidance)
Estate of Grimes v. Warrington, 982 So.2d 365 (Miss. 2008) (waiver of MTCA defenses where defendant substantially engaged in litigation and delayed enforcement)
Jones v. Fluor Daniel Servs., 32 So.3d 417 (Miss. 2010) (adequacy of pleading statute-of-limitations defense in answer)
E. Miss. State Hosp. v. Adams, 947 So.2d 887 (Miss. 2007) (defendants may waive defenses by delaying pursuit while actively litigating)
Farmer v. Bolivar County, 910 So.2d 671 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (following Page’s interpretation of MTCA tolling)
Grant Ctr. Hosp. of Miss. v. Health Grp. of Jackson, 528 So.2d 804 (Miss. 1988) (use of legislative amendments to clarify prior statute meaning)