Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (2026)
Certificate of consultation required in medical malpractice actions; exceptions
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) In any action against a licensed physician, health care provider or health care practitioner for injuries or wrongful death arising out of the course of medical, surgical or other professional services where expert testimony is otherwise required by law, the complaint shall be accompanied by a certificate executed by the attorney for the plaintiff declaring that:
- (a) The attorney has reviewed the facts of the case and has consulted with at least one (1) expert qualified pursuant to the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and the Mississippi Rules of Evidence who is qualified to give expert testimony as to standard of care or negligence and who the attorney reasonably believes is knowledgeable in the relevant issues involved in the particular action, and that the attorney has concluded on the basis of such review and consultation that there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of such action; or
- (b) The attorney was unable to obtain the consultation required by paragraph (a) of this subsection because a limitation of time established by Section 15-1-36 would bar the action and that the consultation could not reasonably be obtained before such time expired. A certificate executed pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be supplemented by a certificate of consultation pursuant to paragraph (a) or (c) within sixty (60) days after service of the complaint or the suit shall be dismissed; or
- (c) The attorney was unable to obtain the consultation required by paragraph (a) of this subsection because the attorney had made at least three (3) separate good faith attempts with three (3) different experts to obtain a consultation and that none of those contacted would agree to a consultation.
- (2) Where a certificate is required pursuant to this section only, a single certificate is required for an action, even if more than one (1) defendant has been named in the complaint or is subsequently named.
- (3) A certificate under subsection (1) of this section is not required where the attorney intends to rely solely on either the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" or "informed consent." In such cases, the complaint shall be accompanied by a certificate executed by the attorney declaring that the attorney is solely relying on such doctrine and, for that reason, is not filing a certificate under subsection (1) of this section.
- (4) If a request by the plaintiff for the records of the plaintiff's medical treatment by the defendants has been made and the records have not been produced, the plaintiff shall not be required to file the certificate required by this section until ninety (90) days after the records have been produced.
- (5) For purposes of this section, an attorney who submits a certificate of consultation shall not be required to disclose the identity of the consulted or the contents of the consultation; provided, however, that when the attorney makes a claim under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section that he was unable to obtain the required consultation with an expert, the court, upon the request of a defendant made prior to compliance by the plaintiff with the provisions of this section, may require the attorney to divulge to the court, in camera and without any disclosure by the court to any other party, the names of physicians refusing such consultation.
- (6) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a plaintiff who is not represented by an attorney.
- (7) The plaintiff, in lieu of serving a certificate required by this section, may provide the defendant or defendants with expert information in the form required by the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Nothing in this section requires the disclosure of any "consulting" or nontrial expert, except as expressly stated herein.
Laws, 2002, 3rd Ex Sess, ch. 2, § 6, eff. 1/1/2003.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: Caldwell v. No. Miss. Med. Ctr., Inc., 956 So. 2d 888 (Miss. 2007).
Caldwell v. No. Miss. Med. Ctr., Inc., 956 So. 2d 888 (Miss. 2007). “One of the affirmative defenses alleged that the Caldwells failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to their failure to comply with Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Supp.2006). After filing his answer and defenses, Dr.”
Meadows v. Blake, 36 So. 3d 1225 (Miss. 2010). “Blake and Baptist filed their Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiffs' Failure to Comply with the Requirements of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58, which the trial court granted, dismissing the Meadowses' claims with prejudice.”
Walker v. Whitfield Nursing Ctr., Inc., 931 So. 2d 583 (Miss. 2006). “Whitfield contended Walker failed to comply with the requirements of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Supp.1995). The motion for summary judgment stated the complaint was not accompanied by an attorney's certificate declaring the attorney had reviewed the facts of the case, had…”
Wimley v. Reid, 991 So. 2d 135 (Miss. 2008). “*137 be accompanied by a certificate executed by the attorney for the plaintiff declaring: (a) The attorney has reviewed the facts of the case and has consulted with at least one (1) expert qualified pursuant to the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and the Mississippi Rules…”
Johnson v. Rao, 952 So. 2d 151 (Miss. 2007). “Rao filed a motion to dismiss alleging insufficient service of process and failure to comply with the requirements of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Rev.2002). The trial court never addressed Dr.”
Thomas v. Warden, 999 So. 2d 842 (Miss. 2008). “Whether the trial court erred in its determination that Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 and Miss.Code Ann.”
Cmty. Hosp. of Jackson v. Goodlett, 968 So. 2d 391 (Miss. 2007). “We restate this issue here for the sake of clarity in discussion.”
Manning v. King's Daughters Med. Ctr., 138 So. 3d 109 (Miss. 2014). “The court specifically found that: [Wjhile § 11-1-58 (requiring a certificate of consultation with a qualified expert) does not apply to a “Pro Se Plaintiff,” the Legislature did not contemplate that an individual citizen be allowed to file a “Pro Se” Complaint (which does not…”
Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. & Long Term Care Magt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So. 2d 1179 (Miss. 2008). “On April 5, 2005, Judge Kidd entered an order denying Forest Hill's Motion to Dismiss McKee's First Amended Complaint, stating that the notice requirement of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 15-1-36(15) and the certificate-of-consultation requirement of Mississippi Code…”
McClain v. Clark, 992 So. 2d 636 (Miss. 2008). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Rev.2004). ¶ 5.”
Brown v. Eli Lilly & Co., 654 F.3d 347 (2d Cir. 2011). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58. Discovery on the questions of community hospital status for Baptist and compliance with the expert consultation requirement were referred to Magistrate Judge Mann.”
Maxwell v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp.-desoto, Inc., 15 So. 3d 427 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). “Section 11-1-58 now requires a certificate to accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice stating that the attorney has consulted an expert and concluded that there is a reasonable basis for the action or that the attorney failed to consult an expert after a good faith…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-58(1) — 16 cases
Caldwell v. No. Miss. Med. Ctr., Inc., 956 So. 2d 888 (Miss. 2007). “One of the affirmative defenses alleged that the Caldwells failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to their failure to comply with Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Supp.2006). After filing his answer and defenses, Dr.”
Walker v. Whitfield Nursing Ctr., Inc., 931 So. 2d 583 (Miss. 2006). “Whitfield contended Walker failed to comply with the requirements of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Supp.1995). The motion for summary judgment stated the complaint was not accompanied by an attorney's certificate declaring the attorney had reviewed the facts of the case, had…”
Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. & Long Term Care Magt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So. 2d 1179 (Miss. 2008). “On April 5, 2005, Judge Kidd entered an order denying Forest Hill's Motion to Dismiss McKee's First Amended Complaint, stating that the notice requirement of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 15-1-36(15) and the certificate-of-consultation requirement of Mississippi Code…”
Wimley v. Reid, 991 So. 2d 135 (Miss. 2008). “*137 be accompanied by a certificate executed by the attorney for the plaintiff declaring: (a) The attorney has reviewed the facts of the case and has consulted with at least one (1) expert qualified pursuant to the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and the Mississippi Rules…”
Brittany Spann, LPN v. Patsy Wood, 269 So. 3d 10 (Miss. 2018).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-58(1)(a) — 9 cases
Walker v. Whitfield Nursing Ctr., Inc., 931 So. 2d 583 (Miss. 2006). “Whitfield contended Walker failed to comply with the requirements of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Supp.1995). The motion for summary judgment stated the complaint was not accompanied by an attorney's certificate declaring the attorney had reviewed the facts of the case, had…”
Caldwell v. No. Miss. Med. Ctr., Inc., 956 So. 2d 888 (Miss. 2007). “One of the affirmative defenses alleged that the Caldwells failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to their failure to comply with Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Supp.2006). After filing his answer and defenses, Dr.”
Thomas v. Warden, 999 So. 2d 842 (Miss. 2008). “Whether the trial court erred in its determination that Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 and Miss.Code Ann.”
Wimley v. Reid, 991 So. 2d 135 (Miss. 2008). “*137 be accompanied by a certificate executed by the attorney for the plaintiff declaring: (a) The attorney has reviewed the facts of the case and has consulted with at least one (1) expert qualified pursuant to the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and the Mississippi Rules…”
Cmty. Hosp. of Jackson v. Goodlett, 968 So. 2d 391 (Miss. 2007). “We restate this issue here for the sake of clarity in discussion.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-58(1)(b) — 2 cases
Caldwell v. No. Miss. Med. Ctr., Inc., 956 So. 2d 888 (Miss. 2007). “One of the affirmative defenses alleged that the Caldwells failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to their failure to comply with Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Supp.2006). After filing his answer and defenses, Dr.”
Walker v. Whitfield Nursing Ctr., Inc., 931 So. 2d 583 (Miss. 2006). “Whitfield contended Walker failed to comply with the requirements of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Supp.1995). The motion for summary judgment stated the complaint was not accompanied by an attorney's certificate declaring the attorney had reviewed the facts of the case, had…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-58(2) — 2 cases
Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. & Long Term Care Magt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So. 2d 1179 (Miss. 2008). “On April 5, 2005, Judge Kidd entered an order denying Forest Hill's Motion to Dismiss McKee's First Amended Complaint, stating that the notice requirement of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 15-1-36(15) and the certificate-of-consultation requirement of Mississippi Code…”
Forest Hill Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Frederica Brister (Miss. 2006).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-58(4) — 6 cases
Meadows v. Blake, 36 So. 3d 1225 (Miss. 2010). “Blake and Baptist filed their Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiffs' Failure to Comply with the Requirements of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58, which the trial court granted, dismissing the Meadowses' claims with prejudice.”
Cmty. Hosp. of Jackson v. Goodlett, 968 So. 2d 391 (Miss. 2007). “We restate this issue here for the sake of clarity in discussion.”
Saul v. Jenkins, 963 So. 2d 552 (Miss. 2007).
Louise Meadows v. Kendall T. Blake (Miss. 2008).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-58(6) — 1 case
Manning v. King's Daughters Med. Ctr., 138 So. 3d 109 (Miss. 2014). “The court specifically found that: [Wjhile § 11-1-58 (requiring a certificate of consultation with a qualified expert) does not apply to a “Pro Se Plaintiff,” the Legislature did not contemplate that an individual citizen be allowed to file a “Pro Se” Complaint (which does not…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-58(7) — 2 cases
Walker v. Whitfield Nursing Ctr., Inc., 931 So. 2d 583 (Miss. 2006). “Whitfield contended Walker failed to comply with the requirements of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Supp.1995). The motion for summary judgment stated the complaint was not accompanied by an attorney's certificate declaring the attorney had reviewed the facts of the case, had…”
Caldwell v. No. Miss. Med. Ctr., Inc., 956 So. 2d 888 (Miss. 2007). “One of the affirmative defenses alleged that the Caldwells failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to their failure to comply with Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Supp.2006). After filing his answer and defenses, Dr.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-58(a) — 1 case
Simmons v. CVS Mississippi Pharmacy, LLC (N.D. Miss. 2020).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-58(b) — 1 case
Caldwell v. No. Miss. Med. Ctr., Inc., 956 So. 2d 888 (Miss. 2007). “One of the affirmative defenses alleged that the Caldwells failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to their failure to comply with Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-58 (Supp.2006). After filing his answer and defenses, Dr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.