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
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
