Lavon Kay Pitalo v. GPCH-GP, Inc. d/b/a Garden Park Medical Center, and Dr. Ronald Graham
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2005-CA-00012-SCT
LAVON KAY PITALO
v.
GPCH-GP, INC. d/b/a GARDEN PARK MEDICAL
CENTER, AND DR. RONALD GRAHAM
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
10/25/2004
HON. STEPHEN B. SIMPSON
HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DAVID C. MORRISON
WILLIAM E. WHITFIELD, III
GEORGE F. BLOSS, III
MARY MARGARET ALEXANDER
CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
AFFIRMED - 05/04/2006
EN BANC.
WALLER, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Lavon Kay Pitalo appeals from a judgment of dismissal of her medical negligence
complaint against Garden Park Memorial Center and Dr. Ronald Graham for failure to
comply with notice provisions provided by Miss. Code Ann. Section 15-1-36(15) (Rev.
2003). We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
Pitalo, a patient of Dr. Graham, was admitted to Garden Park on October 1, 2001, for
shoulder surgery. The procedure was uneventful, and she was discharged the following
morning. Pitalo alleged that within twenty-four hours of being released by Dr. Graham, she
was rushed to the emergency room at Ocean Springs Hospital where she was diagnosed and
treated for a collapsed lung. Pitalo’s condition required surgical insertion of a chest tube, and
she was re-hospitalized for almost a week.
¶3.
On September 25, 2003, Pitalo filed a lawsuit against Dr. Graham and Garden Park
alleging negligence in their ignoring her numerous complaints of chest pain and their failure
to examine her before releasing her from the hospital. Her amended complaint was filed on
June 2, 2004. Thereafter, Dr. Graham and Garden Park collectively renewed their previously
filed Motions to Dismiss based on the statute of limitations, notice of claim, and failure of
Pitalo to file the required certificate with her complaint pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. Sections
15-1-36 (Rev. 2003) and 11-1-58 (Rev. 2002). A Judgment of Dismissal was granted on
October 26, 2004, and following consideration of post-trial motions, a timely appeal was
filed.
ANALYSIS
Whether it was Error for the Circuit Court to Dismiss Pitalo’s Cause of Action for
Failure to Comply with Miss. Code Ann. Section 15-1-36?
¶4.
On appeal, Pitalo argues it was error for the trial court to dismiss her cause of action
because she failed to send a letter to the defendant as provided in Miss. Code Ann. Section
15-1-36(15) (Rev. 2003). Miss. Code Ann. Section 15-1-36 was amended in the special
session of the Mississippi Legislature on tort reform in 2002. Section 15 was added and
became effective January 1, 2003. It requires that an action based on professional negligence
2
of a health care provider may not begin unless the defendant has been given at least 60 days
prior written notice of the intention to begin the action.1
¶5.
When interpreting a statute that is not ambiguous, this Court will apply the plain
meaning of the statute. Claypool v. Mladineo, 724 So. 2d 373, 382 (Miss. 1998). In
construing a statute, the Court must seek the intention of the Legislature, and knowing it,
must adopt that interpretation which will meet the real meaning of the Legislature. Evans
v. Boyle Flying Service, Inc., 680 So. 2d 821, 825 (Miss. 1996). When drafting Miss. Code
Ann. Section 15-1-36(15), the Legislature did not incorporate any given exceptions to this
rule which would alleviate the prerequisite condition of prior written notice. Simply stated,
“shall” is mandatory, while “may” is discretionary. Franklin v. Franklin, 858 So. 2d 110,
114 (Miss. 2003). Pitalo’s failure to send notice of her intent to sue clearly violates the
mandatory instructions concerning notice in Miss. Code Ann. Section 12-1-36(15).
1
The statute specifically states:
No action based upon the health care provider's professional negligence may
be begun unless the defendant has been given at least sixty (60) days' prior
written notice of the intention to begin the action. No particular form of notice
is required, but it shall notify the defendant of the legal basis of the claim and
the type of loss sustained, including with specificity the nature of the injuries
suffered. If the notice is served within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration
of the applicable statute of limitations, the time for the commencement of the
action shall be extended sixty (60) days from the service of the notice for said
health care providers and others. This subsection shall not be applicable with
respect to any defendant whose name is unknown to the plaintiff at the time
of filing the complaint and who is identified therein by a fictitious name.
Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-36(15) (Rev. 2003).
3
¶6.
Pitalo contends that even though she failed to provide notice of her intent to sue, the
circuit court’s dismissal of her action violates our holding in Jackson v. City of Wiggins, 760
So. 2d 694 (Miss. 2000). Pitalo’s claim is clearly distinguishable from Jackson as the
present case concerns medical negligence actions under Miss. Code Ann. Section 15-1-36
(Rev. 2003) - not the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, and Pitalo did not at any time attempt to
send a notice of intent to sue to Dr. Graham or Garden Park, as had been done in Jackson.
Pitalo’s arguments do not excuse the absence of notice of an intent to sue being sent to the
defendants in the present case.
CONCLUSION
¶7.
Pitalo’s failure to send to defendants a notice of intent to sue is an inexcusable
deviation from the Legislature’s requirements for process and notice under Miss. Code Ann.
Section 15-1-36(15), and such failure warrants dismissal of her claim. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶8.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, C.J., COBB, P.J., CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ.,
CONCUR. EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ., CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY WITHOUT
SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
