¶ 1. Aggrieved by the Hinds County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in favor the Estate of Robert M. Ritter, M.D., Robert Sutherland, a former patient of Dr. Ritter, appeals to us. Finding no error in the trial court's grant of summary judgment and dismissal of this case, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT ¶ 2. In June, 1999, Dr. Robert M. Ritter, a psychiatrist, prescribed for Robert Sutherland Zyprexa, a drug manufactured by Eli Lilly.1 Soon after, Sutherland developed side effects, including abnormal, involuntary movements by way of lip-licking and facial twitching. Sutherland subsequently stated under oath that Zyprexa caused the maladies for which he sought damages. Without consulting Dr. Ritter, Sutherland stopped taking Zyprexa for a short period of time but eventually resumed taking the drug. On April 16, 2001, Sutherland checked himself into St. Dominic-Jackson Memorial Hospital's Chemical Dependency Unit (St. Dominic). In his deposition,2 Sutherland stated the following: *Page 1006
Q. Okay. Now, did you check yourself into Dr. Cronin or were you checked in by someone?A. I checked myself.
Q. Okay. And why did you check yourself in?
A. The Zyprexa was destroying my life.
Q. Okay. So you believed when you checked yourself in it was the Zyprexa?
A. It was not a belief, it was a knowing.
Q. Okay.
A. It was knowledge of it.
. . . .
Q. And while you were in the hospital at St. Dominic's under Dr. Cronin's care, was that the last time you took Zyprexa?
A. Yes, sir.
. . . .
Q. All right. Did — but my understanding is you felt like the Zyprexa was causing you problems almost from the get-go.
A. Yes.
Q. And that you stopped it in (sic) at least by April 2001?
A. Stopped under the direction of Dr. Kenneth Cronin.
¶ 3. Sutherland was discharged from St. Dominic on April 19, 2001. Sutherland's discharge summary stated, "the Zyprexa has been discontinued and the patient reports that he feels less flat and `zombie' like."
¶ 4. On January 31, 2002, Sutherland sought follow-up treatment from Dr. Lee Voulters. The report of Dr. Voulters states that Sutherland had taken "Zyprexa which caused a lot of bad side effects," and Dr. Voulters described the condition Sutherland complained of as Tardive Dyskinesia Syndrome (TDS).3
¶ 5. On January 30, 2004, two years and nine months after he was discharged from St. Dominic, Sutherland sent Dr. Ritter's estate4 a Notice of Claim.5 On March 30, 2004, Sutherland filed suit in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County, and in due course, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Ritter's estate. Judge Swan Yerger's Order of Summary Judgment stated, interalia:
The Plaintiff, Robert Sutherland, alleges medical negligence on the part of the late Dr. Ritter. Specifically, Mr. Sutherland claims that Dr. Ritter was negligent in prescribing the medication Zyprexa which, in turn, caused a medical condition called tardive dyskinesia syndrome exemplified by various symptoms. However, Mr. Sutherland last took Zyprexa during April 2001, and yet he took no steps to initiate legal action until January 2004. This is problematic since Mississippi Code Annotated § 15-1-36, which governs medical malpractice claims reads in pertinent part as follows:See § 15-1-36(2) Miss. Code Ann. (Rev. 2003).[N]o claim in tort may be brought against a licensed physician . . . for injuries or wrongful death arising out of the course of medical, surgical or other professional services unless it is filed within two (2) years from the date the alleged act, omission or neglect shall or with reasonable diligence *Page 1007 might have been first known or discovered . . .
¶ 6. After Judge Yerger entered a final judgment of dismissal consistent with the order granting summary judgment, Sutherland perfected his appeal to this Court.
DISCUSSION ¶ 7. The parties in essence couch the issue that this Court must decide as whether Sutherland's injury was latent so that the discovery rule would apply to toll the statute of limitations. Upon reflection as to how this Court has previously dealt with this issue in the medical malpractice context, we recognize our use of the term, "latent injury" in previous cases has led to confusion and misunderstanding of the discovery rule, and we therefore take this opportunity to clarify the law. Thus, we restate the issue for the sake of clarity in discussion.6
WHETHER THE DISCOVERY RULE APPLIES TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE.
¶ 8. "The standard of review in considering on appeal a trial court's grant or denial of summary judgment is de novo."Price v. Purdue Pharma Co., 920 So.2d 479, 483 (Miss. 2006) (citing Satchfield v. R.R. Morrison Son,Inc., 872 So.2d 661, 663 (Miss. 2004)). "In considering this issue, we must examine all the evidentiary matters before us, including admissions in pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and affidavits." Id. (citing AetnaCos. Sur. Co. v. Berry, 669 So.2d 56, 70 (Miss. 1996)). "The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made."Id. (citing Aetna, 669 So.2d at 70). "Issues of fact sufficient to require a denial of a motion for summary judgment are obviously present where one party swears to one version of the matter in issue and the other party takes the opposite position." Id. (citing American LegionLadnier Post No. 42 v. Ocean Springs, 562 So.2d 103, 106 (Miss. 1990)). "If no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment should be entered in that party's favor."Id. (citing Monsanto Co. v. Hall,912 So.2d 134, 136 (Miss. 2005)). "The movant carries the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the non-moving party is given the benefit of the doubt as to the existence of a material fact issue." Id. (citingMonsanto, 912 So.2d at 136). "However, our decisions which discuss this rule are clear that when a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in Miss. R. Civ. P. 56, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, but instead the response must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 483-84 (citing Stuckey v. ProvidentBank, 912 So.2d 859, 864 (Miss. 2005)). "If any triable issues of fact exist, the trial *Page 1008 court's decision to grant summary judgment will be reversed. Otherwise, the decision is affirmed." Id. at 484 (citing Miller v. Meeks, 762 So.2d 302, 304 (Miss. 2000)).
¶ 9. Sutherland argues that his injury was latent and, thus, the discovery rule applies. Sutherland further argues that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until January 31, 2002, which is the date Sutherland learned that the condition from which he suffered was called TDS. On the other hand, Dr. Ritter's estate argues that Judge Yerger correctly held that the statute of limitations began to ran, at the latest, in April, 2001, when Sutherland, by his own admission, knew that Zyprexa was the cause of his symptoms.
Latent injury — undiscovered negligence
¶ 10. The word "latent" means "[h]idden; concealed; dormant; that which does not appear upon the face of a thing." Black's Law Dictionary 794 (5th ed. 1979). "Latent" has also been defined as "present but invisible or inactive; lying hidden and undeveloped within a person or thing." Webster's New Word Dictionary 762 (3rd College ed. 1988). This Court has defined a latent injury "as one where the `plaintiff will be precluded from discovering harm or injury because of the secretive or inherently undiscoverable nature of the wrongdoing in question . . . [or] when it is unrealistic to expect a layman to perceive the injury at the time of the wrongful act.'" Neglen v.Breazeale, 945 So.2d 988, 991 (Miss. 2006) (citing PPGArchitectural Finishes, Inc. v. Lowery, 909 So.2d 47, 50 (Miss. 2005); Donald v. Amoco Prod, Co., 735 So.2d 161,168 (Miss. 1999)). Thus, a latent injury is an injury which is hidden or unseen.
¶ 11. The confusion associated with the term "latent injury" apparently results from the difference in the language of Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49 (Rev. 2003), the general statute of limitations, which provides for tolling of the statute of limitations until a "plaintiff has discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered" a "latent injury or disease."7
¶ 12. The discovery rule for medical negligence cases, however, is different. The inquiry does not center on a latent injury, but rather on "the date the alleged act, omission or neglect shall or with reasonable diligence might have been first known or discovered. . . ." Miss. Code Ann § 15-1-36(2) (Rev. 2003).8 Thus, in medical negligence cases, we must focus our inquiry on when a plaintiff, exercising reasonable diligence, should have first discovered the negligence, rather than the injury. In applying the unambiguous language of Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-36(2), although a hidden or unseen injury might very well serve to trigger the discovery rule and toll the statute of limitations, it is not because the injury itself is hidden or unknown, but rather because the negligence which caused the injury is unknown. Furthermore, in the medical malpractice context, the discovery rule may apply in *Page 1009 cases where the injury is not latent at all, but where the negligence which caused the known injury is unknown. For instance, a patient who undergoes a medical procedure may develop serious complications which are clearly known. However, if the patient has no reason to know that the doctor's negligence in performing the procedure caused the complications, the discovery rule will apply, even though the injury itself is not latent at all.
¶ 13. Judge Yerger clearly understood this distinction and applied it to the facts of this case. In his Order of Summary Judgment, he stated that "[b]y April 2001, at the latest, there existed a basis for initiation of reasonable diligence on Mr. Sutherland's part such that might allow him to discover Dr. Ritter's alleged negligence."
¶ 14. In recent cases, we have discussed the discovery rule in medical malpractice cases brought under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-46-1, et seq. (Rev. 2002) (MTCA) concerning the applicability of the discovery rule to the MTCA's one-year statute of limitations found in section 11-46-11(3). Wright v. Quesnel, 876 So.2d 362 (Miss. 2004); Wayne Gen. Hosp. v. Hayes, 868 So.2d 997 (Miss. 2004). Other cases, such as PPG ArchitecturalFinishes, Inc. v. Lowery, 909 So.2d 47 (Miss. 2005), discuss the discovery rule in relation to the "catch-all" statute of limitations found in Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49 (Rev. 2003), which expressly mentions latent injuries or diseases. However, even in Hayes, we stated that our discovery rule will only toll the statute of limitations "until a plaintiff `should have reasonably known of some negligent conduct, even if the plaintiff does not know with absolute certainty that the conduct was legally negligent.'"868 So.2d at 1000-1001 (quoting Sarris v. Smith, 782 So.2d 721,725 (Miss. 2001)). In PPG, we stated that "`a plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that some negligent conduct had occurred, even if they did not knowwith certainty that the conduct was negligent as a matter of law.'" 909 So.2d at 51 (emphasis in original) (citingHayes, 868 So.2d at 1000).
¶ 15. According to the facts of today's case, we find that Sutherland's own suspicions and actions thereon, together with the passage of time from when Sutherland first recognized the adverse effects from the Zyprexa until Sutherland checked himself into the hospital in April, 2001, were enough to satisfy the statutory requirement of discovery of the alleged medical negligence on the part of Dr. Ritter. Sutherland originally knew or suspected that Dr. Ritter's prescription of Zyprexa caused his undesirable side effects no later than the date of his discharge from St. Dominic on April 19, 2001, because he stated that "[t]he Zyprexa was destroying my life" and that "[i]t was not a belief, it was a knowing."
¶ 16. By his own admission, Sutherland knew who, when, how, and by what he had been injured soon after receiving treatment and the Zyprexa prescription from Dr. Ritter, and certainly, no later than the date of his discharge from St. Dominic. Considering Sutherland's actions, we conclude that Sutherland knew that Dr. Ritter's prescribing him Zyprexa had caused him to suffer an injury.
¶ 17. In sum, we conclude from the record before us that Sutherland knew, soon after receiving his treatment from Dr. Ritter, that the Zyprexa had caused undesired effects. Almost two years later, he checked himself into St. Dominic on April 16, 2001; clearly by the time of his discharge from the hospital on April 19, 2001, and his termination of Dr. Ritter as his physician, Sutherland was on notice of Dr. Ritter's alleged negligence. Therefore, Sutherland unquestionably knew, at *Page 1010 least by April 2001, that Zyprexa was causing his troubles and that Dr. Ritter had prescribed the drug. By reasonable inquiry, Sutherland should, or with reasonable diligence might have discovered the alleged negligence. Thus, the discovery rule would not toll the statute of limitations beyond the date of April 19, 2001, when Sutherland was discharged from the hospital. Therefore, the statute of limitations had long since expired by the time Sutherland submitted his statutory notice of claim to Dr. Ritter's estate on January 30, 2004.
CONCLUSION ¶ 18. For the reasons stated, the judgment of dismissal entered by the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County is affirmed.
¶ 19. AFFIRMED.
SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. DIAZ, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ. COBB, P.J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
(1) All actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed shall be commenced within three (3) years next alter the cause of such action accrued, and not after.
(2) In actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed and which involve latent injury or disease, the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff has discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury.
(3) The provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall apply to all pending and subsequently filed actions.