Failure to Comply with Tort Claims Act Defeats Suit
Post 5064
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pre-suit-notice-hospital-required-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-is3hc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6stk1f-pre-suit-notice-to-hospital-required.html and at https://youtu.be/EYCmc8GLcIo, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
In April Holifield And Jeffery Holifield v. Highland Community Hospital, No. 2023-CA-01342-COA, Court of Appeals of Mississippi (April 15, 2025) the Court of Appeals highlighted the issues surrounding proper notice under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) and the relationship between HCH and Forrest General Hospital (FGH).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Filing of Complaint
The Holifields filed a medical-negligence complaint against HCH on April 5, 2023, for injuries sustained during a procedure on November 5, 2021. Prior communication with HCH’s insurer was initiated by their attorney in January 2022.
Notice of Claim Issues
A notice-of-claim letter was sent to HCH on October 5, 2022, but there was uncertainty regarding its receipt. After discovering a change in administration, a new letter was delivered to the current administrator on October 28, 2022.
HCH’s Defense
HCH moved to dismiss the case on May 24, 2023, claiming it is not a separate entity from FGH and thus not capable of being sued under the MTCA.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend
The plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to substitute FGH for HCH, asserting that both entities received proper notice. HCH countered that FGH had not received any notice, and the statute of limitations had expired.
Trial Court’s Ruling
The circuit court denied the motion to amend on October 30, 2023, stating that HCH is a division of FGH and that the plaintiffs failed to serve proper notice to FGH’s chief executive officer before the statute of limitations expired.
DISCUSSION
Both of the trial court’s rulings at issue on appeal require a determination whether the Holifields properly served presuit notice on FGH in accordance with the MTCA.
One does not have to be a lawyer to sense that the organization, funding and operation of Memorial Hospital at Gulfport are matters capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
In the context of an MTCA case, pre-suit notice either does or does not occur prior to the filing of a complaint. There is little that can be pleaded in an amended complaint that can cure the failure to give proper pre-suit notice of an MTCA claim. The Holifields did not provide the statutorily required notice to FGH under the MTCA. The Court of Appeals concluded that trial court did not err in denying the motion to amend the complaint.
APPEAL OUTCOME
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that the failure to provide notice under the MTCA warranted dismissal of the case with prejudice.
The circuit court granted HCH’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and entered a final judgment of dismissal with prejudice on October 31, 2023. The circuit court also addressed the Mississippi Supreme Court’s recent holding in University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Aycock, 369 So.3d 534 (Miss. 2023), that although the plaintiffs there had “never filed the statutorily required notice with the hospital’s chief executive officer,” the case should be remanded to allow plaintiffs an opportunity to “establish equitable estoppel or waiver based on the medical center’s conduct by competent evidence.” The trial court concluded that Aycock was “distinguishable” because the Holifields “had no communication with FGH (only with a claims representative working on behalf of FGH),” and “HCH committed no acts or made no communicat[ions] which could have given Plaintiffs occasion to say they ‘relied’ upon such acts or communications in good faith or to their detriment.”
ZALMA OPINION
States, like Mississippi enacted statutes limiting suits against doctors and hospitals unless the plaintiff first gives written notice to the Defendant(s) of the intent to sue and providing an opportunity to create an opportunity for an early settlement. The plaintiffs failed to give notice to the correct parties before filling suit, a statutory condition precedent to maintaining a suit against the hospitals.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
