¶ 16. This Court repeatedly has applied the same standards of construction and application to the Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act as those applied to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act ("MTCA"). See, e.g., Thomas v. Warden, 999 So.2d 842 (Miss. 2008) (quoting Wimley v. Reid, 991 So.2d 135 (Miss. 2008)); Tolliver I, 949 So.2d at 696 (citing Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Easterling, 928 So.2d 815, 820 (Miss.
Although some persons may agree that numerous statutes passed by the Legislature are without rational explanation and/or burdensome on the citizens they affect, it is not the prerogative of this Court to refuse enforcement of laws which it deems unwise. See Thomas v. Warden, 999 So.2d 842, 846 (Miss. 2008) ("[o]ur constitutional duty is to interpret and apply the law as it is written, not as we think it might have been more fairly written."). ¶ 96.
But, as this Court has held before, Mississippi's constitutional right of access to its courts is not without bounds. Thomas v. Warden, 999 So. 2d 842, 846 (Miss. 2008) (discussing Miss. Const. art. 3, § 24). See also Duncan v. Johnson, 14 So. 3d 760, 765 (Miss.
It was the ruling of the Court that the suit was filed prematurely.Thomas v. Warden, 999 So. 2d 842, 847 n. 3 (Miss. 2008) (emphasis added).
¶ 26. The Hospital contends that the supreme court decision of Thomas v. Warden, 999 So.2d 842 (Miss. 2008) supports its view that the failure to comply with the requirement causes the complaint to have no legal effect and, thus, does not toll the statute of limitations. The defendants also assert that the Price and Thomas decisions conflict.
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.Thomas v. Warden, 999 So.2d 842, 849 (Miss. 2008) ( citing Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-36(15). Plaintiff responds to defendant's motion for summary judgment by contending that she will provide an expert witness to support her claims at trial.
But it is clear that no absolute right of access to courts exists, only reasonable access and opportunity to be heard. Thomas v. Warden, 999 So. 2d 842, 846 (Miss. 2008). Furthermore, it is obvious that a right to open courts "does not mean that the office of the clerk must be physically open at all hours or that the filing of papers can be effected by leaving them in a closed or vacant office."
2008) ("[A]s a named party, Forest Hill was entitled to sixty days['] notice before the filing of the suit, failing which, Forest Hill was entitled to dismissal."); Thomas v. Warden , 999 So.2d 842, 847 (Miss. 2008) ("Because Thomas failed to provide a sixty-day notice as required by Section 15-1-36(15), we must affirm the trial court's dismissal of the complaint."); Arceo v. Tolliver , 949 So.2d 691, 694 (Miss.
The caselaw upon which HCCL relies addresses statutory, presuit notice requirements for medical-malpractice suits. SeeMiss.Code Ann. § 15–1–36 (Rev.2012); see also Thomas v. Warden, 999 So.2d 842, 845–47 (Miss.2008) (dismissing for failure to fulfill presuit notice requirement); and Price v. Clark, 21 So.3d 509 (Miss.2009). Those cases are not applicable here.
The Supreme Court of Mississippi, for example, upheld a 60-day medical malpractice notice requirement as consistent with the separation of powers under its state constitution. Thomas v. Warden, 999 So. 2d 842, 847 (Miss. 2008). In doing so, it distinguished legislatively enacted prerequisites to suit from legislatively enacted court procedures that affect case management after filing, approving of the former: