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
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
