Dillard, Chief Judge.Tammi Farmer appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her negligence action against the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDOC”), arguing that the court erred by (1) finding that her ante-litem notice failed to comply with the Georgia Tort Claims Act’s (“GTCA”) requirement that the notice provide the amount of the loss claimed and (2) considering documents outside the pleadings. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm. The record shows that Farmer filed a complaint for damages against the GDOC, alleging that on May 16, 2013, while in custody of the Women’s Probation Detention Center in Claxton, Georgia and participating in a work-release program, she slipped and fell in pallet-jack fluid that leaked on the floor in her work area, resulting in a torn meniscus and ACL in her right knee. Farmer’s complaint also asserted that, prior to filing this negligence action, she complied with all of the GTCA’s notice requirements. And in support, Farmer attached a letter dated September 27, 2013, addressed to the GDOC, which provided notice of her claim, as well as an accompanying receipt of delivery. The GDOC answered Farmer’s complaint, denying liability for negligence and asserting several affirmative defenses, including that she failed to strictly comply with the GTCA’s notice requirements. Simultaneously with its answer, the GDOC also filed a motion to dismiss Farmer’s complaint, arguing that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because her ante-litem notice did not comply with the GTCA’s requirements that she provide the amount of the loss claimed and identify the acts or omissions resulting in her alleged loss. In support of its motion, the GDOC attached a portion of Farmer’s medical records evincing that she received medical treatment prior to the date of the ante-litem notice. On August 5, 2015, Farmer filed her response to the GDOC’s motion, noting, inter alia, that on August 26, 2014, she submitted a settlement demand to the GDOC for $100,000, and she attached a copy of her settlement-demand package. Following further briefing by the parties and a hearing on the matter, the trial court granted the GDOC’s motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that Farmer failed to strictly comply with the GTCA’s notice requirement that she provide a specific dollar amount of her alleged losses or a range of such losses in her ante-litem notice. This appeal follows.We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss based on sovereign-immunity grounds, “which is a matter of law.”[1] Further, the trial court’s factual findings will be sustained if “there is evidence supporting them, and the burden of proof is on the party seeking the waiver of immunity.”[2] With these guiding principles in mind, we turn now to Farmer’s specific claims of error.1. Farmer first argues that the trial court erred by dismissing her claim based on its finding that the ante-litem notice did not strictly comply with the notice requirements of the GTCA. We disagree. The GTCA is a limited waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity, crafted—as is constitutionally authorized—by our General Assembly, and “not subject to modification or abrogation by our courts, and requires a party with a potential tort claim against the State to provide [it] with notice of the claim prior to filing suit thereon.”[3] Moreover, the ante-litem notice requirements serve the purpose of “ensuring that the State receives adequate notice of the claim to facilitate settlement before the filing of a lawsuit.”[4] Importantly, a claimant must “strictly comply with the notice provisions as a prerequisite to filing suit under the GTCA, and substantial compliance is not sufficient.”[5] To be sure, strict compliance does not demand a “hypertechnical construction that would not measurably advance the purpose of the GTCA’s notice provisions as reflected by the plain meaning of the relevant statutory text.”[6] But even in cases that arguably reflect some degree of leniency, the plaintiffs “complied with the plain language of the ante-litem-notice requirements.”[7] Indeed, in one such case, our Supreme Court explicitly reaffirmed that “the GTCA must be strictly construed.”[8] Suffice it to say, “substantial compliance is not strict compliance.”[9] Strict compliance is “exactly what it sounds like: strict.”[10] Thus, if the ante-litem notice requirements are not met, then the State does not waive sovereign immunity, and “the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.”[11]As to those requirements, OCGA. § 50-21-26 (a) (5) provides that an ante-litem notice must state, to the extent of the claimant’s knowledge and belief and as may be practicable under the circumstances, the following: (A) [t]he name of the state government entity, the acts or omissions of which are asserted as the basis of the claim; (B) [t]he time of the transaction or occurrence out of which the loss arose; (C) [t]he place of the transaction or occurrence; (D) The nature of the loss suffered; (E) [t]he amount of the loss claimed; and (F) [t]he acts or omissions which caused the loss.[12]
