Oral arg. – Miss.S.Ct. – August 24, 2015

At 1:30 the Court will hear an interlocutory appeal in Kay Thornhill CFNB v. Christopher Ingram of behalf of the Estate of Jennifer Lynn Ingram. 

Jennifer Ingram was 22 when she died in 2001 at Forrest General Hospital.  She had been treated the day before her death by Nurse Practitioner Kay Thornhill.  Her estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against various defendants including Thornhill and Forrest General on August 30, 2002. Ingram admits the case became dormant after a four year period because his attorney was working on other matters.   At that point Thornhill filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute which the judge granted without prejudice.

Ingram filed another Complaint on December 28, 2010 against all three defendants.    On December 11, 2012, Thornhill filed a  Motion for Summary Judgment on statute of limitations grounds arguing that there was no tolling when  a case is dismissed “without prejudice” for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b).  The Court denied it.  She later filed a second motion for summary judgment on the same grounds which the Court again denied but treating the motion as a Rule 60(b) motion.  Thornhill filed a petition for interlocutory appeal which was denied.

Thornhill’s brief

Ingram’s brief

Thornhill’s reply brief

Watch the argument here.

My gripe – no one gives us any clue how this young woman died.  Am I the only person thinking someone might have enlightened us on that  score?

5 thoughts on “Oral arg. – Miss.S.Ct. – August 24, 2015

  1. Good luck finding anything. The other thing is that the parties spend all this time arguing whether a second motion for summary judgment is a Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60(b) comes into play only when asking for reconsideration of a final order. Holland v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 3 So. 3d 94, 104 (Miss. 2008).

  2. I couldn’t see anything as to what the heck happened to this person. I have worked with Norman Pauli as an expert in a couple of cases, but it was about 15 years ago.

    Now you have me all interested. She went to the doctor on Feb 3, went back to the practitioner clinic on Feb 7, then admitted to Forrest General on Feb 8 and died?? geez.

    On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Joseph Blackston wrote:

    > Jane, > > Let me look over the briefs and will do the best I can. > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Jane’s Law Blog <

  3. I find it weird the plaintiff isn’t throwing in irrelevant but horrifying facts. A court may weasel out of applying procedural rules if it feels like the plaintiff really got screwed. (The judges *say* to be objective, etc., but based on the ops that I read, I don’t believe that quite 100%. Judges are humans too, most of ’em.)

  4. The reason the 22-year-old died may not be relevant to any issue in the case but as I started reading the briefs, that was one thing I really wanted to know. Meanwhile, the briefs contain completely irrelevant references to MRCP 60(b). It would certainly make a completely boring procedural dispute a little interesting. Is that a bad thing?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s