Another Insufficient Service Of Process, Another Dismissal

posted on March 30th, 2009 in Summary Judgment, Statute of Limitations, Service of Process by clint
Generic Cytotec Providence Female Viagra With PayPal Where Order Antabuse Germany Price For Cymbalta Pharmacy Herbal Inderal Faq Price For Aldactone Pharmacy Female Viagra Mail Where Order Acomplia Get High Buy Female Viagra Harrisburg Prevacid Generic Propecia DesMoines Natural Zelnorm United States Taking Prevacid Discount Norvasc Overnight Delivery Price For Acomplia Health Forum Where Order Diflucan Testimonials Where To Get Accutane Mexico Herbal Soma Mail Where Order Doxycycline Australia Generic Seroquel Lincoln Buy Prevacid SaltLakeCity Where Order Hoodia Prescription Generic Acomplia Australia Natural Toprol XL Cheapest Pills Clomid Prescription Clomid Weight Buy Ultram Price For Lasix Overnight Delivery Herbal Penisole Description Levitra Weight Prevacid Age Stromectol Zithromax Comparison Zyban Weight Natural Stromectol Mexico Generic Antabuse Equivalent Generic Tramadol Horny Goat Weed Accutane Testimonials Price For Amoxil High Doses Herbal Diflucan Drug Information Price For Prevacid Canadian Natural Lotrisone Weight Generic Aldactone Mexico Discount Zelnorm France Order Toprol XL Phoenix Aricept Buy Norvasc Providence Where Order Inderal Tablets Taking Erythromycin Where Order Cytotec Overnight Delivery

In Hall v. Haynes, No. W2007-02611-COA-R9-CV (3/26/09), Plaintiff sued Dr. Haynes and MedSouth for medical malpractice. MedSouth’s employee, Ms. Enochs, a customer service representative, accepted service of process on behalf of Dr. Haynes. The complaint was placed in Dr. Haynes’ mailbox and he received it. On the same day, another MedSouth customer service representative, Ms. Pruitt, accepted service of process on behalf of MedSouth. The complaint was placed in the mailbox of the Administrator.

In their answer, the Defendants asserted “insufficiency of service of process” as an affirmative defense. The Defendants contended that service was not effective on Dr. Haynes because he was not personally served with the summons, complaint, or amended complaint. The Defendants contended that service on MedSouth was not effective because MedSouth’s agent for service of process was not personally served. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, relying on Boles v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 2000 WL 1030837 (Tenn. Ct. App.). The defendants were granted permission for interlocutory appeal. The key issues on appeal were: (1) whether an individual defendant may be served with process by delivering copies of the summons and complaint to a co-worker who is not specifically authorized to accept service on the individual’s behalf; (2) whether a corporate defendant may be served with process by delivering copies of the summons and complaint to an employee who is not an officer, managing agent, chief agent, or registered agent of the corporation, and who is not specifically authorized to accept service on the corporation’s behalf.

The Court of Appeals began its analysis by reciting Rule 4.04(1)’s key principle: service of process by in-person delivery to a person not expressly or impliedly authorized to accept service of process is inadequate. Then, the Court distinguished Boles and found that only Rule 4.04(4) defines the class of persons who may accept service of process. It was undisputed that Ms. Enochs did not have express actual authority to accept service of process on behalf of Dr. Haynes. Moreover, nothing in the record indicated that acceptance of service of process on behalf of Dr. Haynes was incidental and necessary to Ms. Enoch’s job duties as a customer service representative for MedSouth, which included checking in patients, assisting patients with billing issues, and handling requests for medical records. Therefore, Ms. Enochs did not have implied actual authority to accept service of process on behalf of Dr. Haynes.

In addition, neither MedSouth’s registered agent nor MedSouth’s administrator were served with process for MedSouth. Instead, in-person service of process on MedSouth was accepted by a MedSouth customer service representative, Ms. Pruitt. It was undisputed that Ms. Enochs did not have express actual authority to accept service of process on behalf of MedSouth. Nothing in the record indicated that acceptance of service of process on behalf of MedSouth was incidental and necessary to Ms. Pruitt’s job duties as a customer service representative for MedSouth. Like Ms. Enochs, Ms. Pruitt’s job duties included such things as checking in patients and handling requests for medical records. Therefore, Ms. Pruitt did not have implied actual authority to accept service of process on MedSouth’s behalf. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Plaintiffs’ service of process on Dr. Haynes did not comply with Rule 4.04, and the Plaintiff’s service of process on MedSouth did not comply with the provision in Rule 4.04(4). One year had lapsed; therefore, the statute of limitations barred the action. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed the action.

This is another sad story where the plaintiff did not insist on serving the defendant or its registered agent. Don’t be tricked into serving some nurse or corporate mid-level manager. Remember the old adage, “For loss of a nail the horseshoe was lost and there with it went the whole battle.” Be ye diligent in the little things.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply