Debra W. Ellis v. Mississippi Baptist Medical Center
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CA-01315-COA
DEBRA W. ELLIS, EXECUTRIX OF THE
ESTATE OF WILLIE B. WOODRUFF,
DECEASED, GEORGE MITCHELL, JAMES
MITCHELL, M.D. AND BETTY MITCHELL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHER WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES
APPELLANTS
v.
MISSISSIPPI BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER,
INC. AND MISSISSIPPI BAPTIST HEALTH
SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A BAPTIST MEDICAL
CENTER
APPELLEES
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
10/24/2006
HON. W. SWAN YERGER
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
BARRY H. POWELL
D. COLLIER GRAHAM
CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUIT
DISMISSED
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
REVERSED AND REMANDED: 12/16/2008
BEFORE KING, C.J., IRVING AND ISHEE, JJ.
KING, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Debra W. Ellis filed a medical malpractice suit against Mississippi Baptist Medical
Center, Inc., and Mississippi Health Systems, Inc., (collectively referred to as “Baptist”) on
behalf of the Estate of Willie B. Woodruff, deceased, and all wrongful death beneficiaries.
Baptist filed a motion to dismiss the action, and the trial court granted the motion.
Aggrieved, Ellis appeals, raising one issue:
Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Ellis’s lawsuit when Ellis omitted
the required certificate of consultation when filing her original complaint but
subsequently filed the required certificate with her third amended complaint.
Finding error, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
On January 24, 2005, Ellis filed a medical malpractice claim against Baptist and the
Community Nursing Home Foundation. Ellis alleged that Woodruff, her mother, was
admitted to Baptist Medical Center on December 24, 2002, through January 6, 2003, and
January 8, 2003, through January 26, 2003. Ellis also claimed that her mother was a resident
at Community Nursing Home from October 28, 2002, to January 26, 2003. Ellis argued that
Baptist and Community Nursing Home breached their duty to her mother to provide her
adequate medical care and nursing home care, which caused Woodruff to develop large
decubitus ulcers that ultimately caused her death. Ellis failed to file a certificate of
consultation, which is required in medical malpractice actions, stating that her attorney
consulted with a qualified medical expert and concluded that there was a reasonable basis
for the action.
¶3.
Ellis filed an amended complaint on February 14, 2005. The only difference between
the original complaint and the amended complaint is that Ellis stated that Community
Nursing Home did not have a registered agent for service of process. In response,
Community Nursing Home filed a motion to dismiss Ellis’s suit and raised several defenses,
which included the following: Community Nursing Home did not operate the nursing home
2
that cared for the decedent; Ellis failed to provide Community Nursing Home with sixty
days’ notice; and Ellis failed to file the required certificate of expert consultation. On
February 28, 2005, Baptist answered the amended complaint, arguing that Ellis’s complaint
should be dismissed because Ellis failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted
and that the claim was time-barred.
¶4.
On March 21, 2005, Ellis filed a motion to file a third amended complaint, which
simply stated that the third amended complaint would include additional plaintiffs. A copy
of the proposed amended complaint was attached to the motion and included a certificate of
consultation. Within two days, the trial court granted Ellis’s motion to file a third amended
complaint.
¶5.
On April 7, 2005, Baptist answered the third amended complaint, which was verbatim
to its answer to the second amended complaint. On July 21, 2006, Community Nursing
Home filed a supplemental motion to dismiss, which reasserted its defenses against Ellis.
Thereafter, on August 8, 2006, Baptist filed a motion to join Community Nursing Home’s
motion to dismiss and argued that Ellis’s original and first amended complaint were a nullity
because Ellis failed to attach a certificate of consultation.
¶6.
On September 14, 2006, the trial court granted Community Nursing Home’s motion
to dismiss, but the trial court did not dismiss Baptist at this time. Shortly thereafter, Ellis
filed a response to Baptist’s motion to dismiss, arguing the following: (1) prior to Ellis filing
the third amended complaint, Baptist failed to specifically raise Ellis’s failure to file the
certificate of consultation as a defense; (2) Ellis filed the required certificate of consultation
with her third amended complaint, and the amendment related back to the original complaint;
3
and (3) Ellis maintained that Baptist could not now complain belatedly about the amendment
since Baptist did not object to Ellis’s third amended complaint. The trial court granted
Baptist’s motion and dismissed Ellis’s claim with prejudice, stating that Ellis failed to file
the required certificate of consultation. Aggrieved, Ellis filed a motion to reconsider the
order of dismissal and attached the affidavits of her attorneys and Dr. Carl Ramsey in an
effort to prove that she complied with the statute. The trial court denied the motion, and
Ellis timely filed this appeal.
ANALYSIS
¶7.
A motion to dismiss raises an issue of law. Whitt v. Gordon, 872 So. 2d 71, 73 (¶7)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Liggans v. Coahoma County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 823 So. 2d 1152,
1154 (¶5) (Miss. 2002)). Therefore, this Court reviews a trial court’s grant or denial of a
motion to dismiss under a de novo standard of review. Id. “When considering a motion to
dismiss, the allegations in the complaint must be taken as true, and the motion should not be
granted unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff will be unable to prove
any set of facts in support of his claim.” Cmty. Hosp. of Jackson v. Goodlett, 968 So. 2d
391, 396 (¶9) (Miss. 2007) (overruled on other grounds) (citations omitted). Dismissal is
proper where the trial judge finds that the plaintiff failed to prove one or more required
elements of his claim. Id. “Conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as
factual conclusions will not suffice to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Id.
Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Ellis’s lawsuit when Ellis
omitted the required certificate of consultation when filing her original
complaint but subsequently filed the required certificate with her third
amended complaint.
4
¶8.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-1-58(1)(a) (Supp. 2008) provides, in
pertinent part, that:
(1) In any action against a licensed physician, health care provider or health
care practitioner for injuries or wrongful death arising out of the course of
medical, surgical or other professional services where expert testimony is
otherwise required by law, the complaint shall be accompanied by a
certificate executed by the attorney for the plaintiff declaring that:
(a) The attorney has reviewed the facts of the case and has
consulted with at least one (1) expert qualified pursuant to the
Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and the Mississippi Rules
of Evidence who is qualified to give expert testimony as to
standard of care or negligence and who the attorney reasonably
believes is knowledgeable in the relevant issues involved in the
particular action, and that the attorney has concluded on the
basis of such review and consultation that there is a reasonable
basis for the commencement of such action . . . .
(Emphasis added).
¶9.
Ellis argues that the trial court erred by dismissing her lawsuit for three reasons: (1)
Baptist did not raise lack of the statutorily required notice as a defense in either its first
answer or its answer to Ellis’s third amended complaint; (2) Baptist did not object to Ellis’s
motion to file a third amended complaint; and (3) Ellis’s third amended complaint is not
time-barred because it relates back to the date of the filing of the original complaint.
Conversely, Baptist argues that Ellis’s lawsuit was properly dismissed because Ellis did not
properly commence the action by filing the certificate of consultation with her original
complaint, which is strictly required by statute. Baptist also maintains that the third amended
complaint does not relate back to the original complaint; therefore, it is time-barred.
¶10.
The supreme court previously held that section 11-1-58 required strict compliance and
dismissal of a lawsuit was warranted where the plaintiff failed to file the certificate of
5
consultation with the complaint. See Walker v. Whitfield Nursing Ctr., Inc., 931 So. 2d 583,
589 (¶¶18-19) (Miss. 2006); see also Goodlett, 968 So. 2d at 397 (¶13); Caldwell v. N. Miss.
Med. Ctr., Inc., 956 So. 2d 888, 894-95 (¶¶23-25) (Miss. 2007). However, the supreme
court has recently held that this procedural requirement is unconstitutional, overruling
Walker and its progeny. See Wimley v. Reid, 991 So. 2d 135, 137-38 (¶¶9-16) (Miss. 2008);
see also McClain v. Clark, 2007-CA-00316-SCT (¶¶6-7) (Miss. Oct. 16, 2008).
¶11.
In Wimley, the plaintiff failed to file a certificate of consultation or a disclosure of
expert information with her complaint. Wimley, 991 So. 2d at 136 (¶2). A week after filing
her complaint, the plaintiff sought leave of court to amend her complaint to include the
certificate of consultation. Id. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the
plaintiff failed to strictly comply with section 11-1-58. Id. The trial court dismissed the
lawsuit with prejudice for the plaintiff’s failure to strictly comply with the statute. Id. at
(¶3). On appeal, the supreme court addressed the constitutionality of the procedural rule set
forth in section 11-1-58. Id. at (¶4).
¶12.
Based on the doctrine of separation of powers, the supreme court found that only it
possessed the power to promulgate rules of procedure. Id. at 138 (¶12) (quoting Newell v.
State, 308 So. 2d 71, 76 (Miss. 1975)). The Legislature is prohibited “from promulgating
procedural statutes which require dismissal of a complaint . . . filed in full compliance with
the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. at (¶14). The supreme court found that the
requirement of strict compliance – that a certificate of consultation must accompany the
complaint in a medical malpractice lawsuit – was such an unconstitutional procedural statute.
Id. Accordingly, the supreme court held that “a complaint, otherwise properly filed, may not
6
be dismissed, and need not be amended, simply because the plaintiff failed to attach a
certificate or waiver.” Id. at (¶16). The supreme court reversed and remanded the case to
the trial court to determine if the plaintiff met the pre-suit requirements. Id. at 139 (¶21).
¶13.
In McClain, no certificate of consultation accompanied the plaintiff’s complaint.
McClain, 2007-CA-00316-SCT at (¶2). The defendants made a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with section 11-1-58. Id. The trial
court found that the plaintiff did consult with experts before filing the lawsuit, which was
evidenced by copies of the experts’ opinions. Id. However, the trial court dismissed the
lawsuit, finding that the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with section 11-1-58 by failing to
attach a certificate of consultation to her complaint. Id.
¶14.
The supreme court followed its holding in Wimley and held that the procedural
requirement was unconstitutional. Id. at (¶6). Thus, the supreme court found that “‘[the]
complaint otherwise properly filed, may not be dismissed . . . simply because the plaintiff
failed to attach a [certificate of consultation],’ pursuant to [s]ection 11-1-58.” Id. (quoting
Wimley, 991 So. 2d at 138 (¶16)). Because the plaintiff filed a certificate of review before
she filed the lawsuit, the supreme court found that the plaintiff satisfied the pre-suit
requirement of section 11-1-58 by consulting with a medical expert before filing suit. Id. at
(¶7). Thus, the supreme court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of McClain’s complaint
and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. at (¶9).
¶15.
Based on the recent supreme court decisions in Wimley and McClain, we find that
Ellis’s complaint should not have been dismissed simply because she did not attach a
certificate of consultation to her complaint. However, we must determine if Ellis’s attorneys
7
actually complied with section 11-1-58 by consulting with a medical expert before filing the
lawsuit and determined there was a reasonable basis for filing the lawsuit. McClain, 2007CA-00316-SCT at (¶7) (finding that “[t]he plaintiff must nevertheless comply with the presuit requirements of [s]ection 11-1-58").
¶16.
Although Ellis did not attach her certificate of consultation to her original complaint,
the trial court granted Ellis leave of court to amend her complaint. In her third amended
complaint, Ellis attached a certificate of consultation, which stated the following:
I, [the attorney for the plaintiff], declare that I have reviewed the facts of this
case and have consulted with at least one expert qualified pursuant to the
Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and the Mississippi Rules of Evidence
who is qualified to give expert testimony as to standard of care or negligence,
whom I reasonably believe is knowledgeable in the relevant issues involved
in this action, and I have concluded on the basis of such review and
consultation that there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of this
action.
The certificate of consultation failed to specifically state whether Ellis’s attorneys consulted
with the medical expert before the lawsuit was filed.
¶17.
After the trial court dismissed Ellis’s lawsuit against Baptist, Ellis filed a motion to
reconsider. In her motion to reconsider, Ellis included affidavits from her attorneys and an
affidavit and summary of medical findings from Dr. Ramsey. Ellis’s attorneys signed
affidavits stating that they conferred with Dr. Ramsey on August 12, 2004, to review the
facts of the case. Based on this review, the attorneys concluded that there was a reasonable
basis for the commencement of the lawsuit. In his affidavit, Dr. Ramsey stated that he was
retained by Ellis prior to August 2004. Dr. Ramsey also stated that he had reviewed
Woodruff’s medical records and consulted with Ellis’s attorneys. In his summary of medical
8
findings, Dr. Ramsey opined that Baptist failed to meet the standard of care when caring for
Woodruff in its facilities.
¶18.
Based on the affidavits and Dr. Ramsey’s medical opinion, we find that Ellis is in
compliance with section 11-1-58 because Ellis’s attorneys consulted with a qualified medical
expert before filing the lawsuit in January 2005 and determined that there was a reasonable
basis for filing the lawsuit. Therefore, we find that the trial court’s dismissal of Ellis’s
motion to reconsider was error. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s
dismissal of Ellis’s lawsuit against Baptist and remand the case to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶19. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY IS
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT
WITH THIS OPINION. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLEES.
LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND
CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
CHANDLER AND BARNES, JJ., NOT
PARTICIPATING.
9
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.
