Background
Corlexia Carter sought treatment at the University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC) in December 2017 for blurred vision and headaches. UMMC diagnosed idiopathic intracranial hypertension and treated her with medication before performing an optic-nerve sheath fenestration on December 19, 2017. After her vision declined, she was admitted in January 2018 and underwent placement of a lumbar peritoneal shunt.
In the days after the shunt procedure, Carter told her mother that “there’s something done wrong” and that she needed to see someone else because something was wrong. Carter later testified that she believed she was not receiving proper care because her sight was continuing to deteriorate. She continued follow-up visits at UMMC, then saw a neurologist at another hospital on May 23, 2018, who said UMMC’s treatment was not correct and offered a different diagnosis. Carter sent UMMC a notice of claim on May 9, 2019, and sued on November 5, 2019. The circuit court denied UMMC’s summary-judgment motion asserting that the claim was time-barred.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for UMMC. Applying the discovery rule recognized in prior Mississippi cases under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, the Court held that the one-year limitations period begins when a plaintiff reasonably should know of possible negligent conduct, not when the plaintiff obtains absolute certainty, medical records, or a confirming expert opinion.
Carter’s and her mother’s deposition testimony established that Carter suspected improper treatment shortly after her January 2018 shunt procedure. Those statements were enough to start the limitations clock by late January 2018. Her May 2019 notice of claim was therefore untimely. The Court also held that Carter’s later affidavit, which characterized her earlier statements as fear and worry rather than awareness of wrongdoing, did not identify specific facts or corroborating evidence sufficient to create a genuine factual dispute.
Key Takeaways
- Under existing Mississippi precedent, an MTCA medical-negligence claimant need not have an expert opinion or medical records before the discovery-rule clock begins.
- A claimant’s own expressed suspicion that medical providers did something wrong can establish discovery of possible negligence.
- A later affidavit that attempts to recast contradictory deposition testimony must offer specific facts or corroborating evidence to defeat summary judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that the MTCA’s one-year limitations period can begin before a patient receives a second opinion or knows the precise medical basis for a negligence claim. Attorneys evaluating public-hospital malpractice claims should closely examine the client’s contemporaneous statements and conduct for evidence of earlier suspicion.
In a special concurrence, Presiding Justice Coleman urged the Court to overrule precedent applying any discovery rule to MTCA claims, reasoning that the statute’s text does not contain one. The majority did not adopt that position and instead held Carter’s claim untimely under the existing discovery-rule framework.