Court rejects technicality involving Notice of Intent

Curtis Smith attempted to sue his surgeon, Yazdin Amaria, alleging serious complications from a botched surgery.  He sought medical records from the Doctor's office, but mistakenly addressed the request to 11 South Monroe, instead of 111 South Monroe.  The office responded with the requested records, and several months later, Smith served his required Notice of Intent at the same address.  When he didn't receive an answer, he wrote to the 11 South Monroe address, again, to inquire whether the doctor received the NOI.  The doctor's insurer responded, but did not correct the address error. 

Nevertheless, when Smith filed suit, the insurer argued that the case should be dismissed because the NOI was defective (because it was not served on the proper address at 111 South Monroe) and therefore the statute of limitations had run, permanently barring the claim.  The Court of Appeals rejected this "Loophole Larry" defense by noting that 11 South Monroe was, in fact, the "last known address" by which Smith and his attorneys had communicated with the doctor and the doctor's insurers, even if it was not the "official" address.