Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Felicia Rogers Thomas and Thomas Johnson, Jr. appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of William Pace, M.D. in a medical-malpractice suit they filed against the doctor. The Johnsons' claim stemmed from a surgical procedure Dr. Pace had performed on Felicia Johnson. Dr. Pace filed his Answer and Defenses, denying any negligence. On the same day, Dr. Pace served his first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents to the Johnsons. One interrogatory requested that the Johnsons identify any medical experts they intended to call as witnesses at trial, along with the proposed opinions of those experts. In their response, the Johnsons stated that they had not yet identified an expert to be called as a witness at trial. Dr. Pace then served his first requests for admission and second requests for production of documents to the Johnsons. In response, the Johnsons admitted that they did not have a report from a qualified medical expert stating that Dr. Pace had breached the standard of care applicable to him in any way in his care and treatment of Felicia. Dr. Pace then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the Johnsons had failed to produce any expert testimony to support their claim. The Johnsons moved to quash Dr. Pace's motion, arguing it was premature, because no scheduling order had been entered in the case and no deadline for designating an expert witness had been established. The Johnsons did not respond to the substantive allegations of Dr. Pace's motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered its order granting Dr. Pace's motion for summary judgment. Finding no error in the trial court's grant of summary judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson, Jr. v. Pace" on Justia Law

George Neville filed a petition for modification of a final judgment of divorce seeking to have his ex-wife, Tina Blitz, pay their daughter's college expenses. The chancellor ordered the parties to divide the college expenses equally, after scholarships and a monthly housing stipend from the Post-9/11 GI Bill were deducted. George, who had assigned his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his daughter, appealed arguing the chancellor erred by dividing the monthly housing stipend between Tina and himself. The chancellor found that George should take credit for the payment of the daughter's tuition, fees, and books from the Post-9/11 GI Bill, but not the monthly housing stipend. He ordered that the housing stipend be taken off the top , along with the daughter's scholarships, before the remaining expenses were divided between George and Tina. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the chancellor's allocation of the monthly housing stipend was a violation of 38 U.S.C. 3319(f)(3) because it constituted division of the benefit between parties in a civil proceeding. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case back to the chancellor to modify the order to give George credit for all benefits from the Post-9/11 GI Bill. View "Neville v. Blitz" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a formal complaint against Municipal Court Judge Robert Fowlkes following a verbal altercation he had with a probation officer outside the courtroom. The Commission and Judge Fowlkes filed a joint motion asking the Court to approve agreed-upon sanctions of a public reprimand and costs of $200. The Supreme Court agreed that Judge Fowlkes should be publicly reprimanded and assessed $200 for the costs of proceedings, and the Court found he also should be fined $1,000. View "Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Fowlkes" on Justia Law

John Wrenn pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appealed his conviction, arguing: (1) Mississippi’s concealed-weapon statute precluded his conviction; and (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Because Wrenn's conviction was the result of a guilty plea, the Supreme Court dismissed this appeal. View "Wrenn v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Frederick Wilson wounded one person and killed another when he fired gunshots at the decedent's car. Wilson was convicted of one count of aggravated assault and one count of murder. Wilson appealed his convictions, alleging the trial court erred: (1) by sustaining the State's relevance objections during his cross-examination of the wounded victim; and (2) by admitting into evidence his first two statements to law-enforcement authorities. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Wilson's convictions and sentences. View "Wilson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Minor Nicholas Proulx was injured in a car accident and treated for his injuries at Memorial Hospital at Gulfport. Nicholas' parents Timothy and Hope Proulx obtained letters of guardianship and petitioned the chancery court for authority to compromise and settle Nicholas' personal injury claim. The guardians also asked the court to dismiss claims against the settlement proceeds made b several medical providers, including Memorial. Memorial appealed the dismissal of its claim against the settlement. Because Memorial had no assignment, lien or other legal right to payment from the settlement proceeds, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court's dismissal of Memorial's claim. View "Memorial Hospital at Gulfport v. Proulx" on Justia Law

Kathy Allegrezza filed separate workers' compensation claims against her employer Greenville Manufacturing, alleging injury to her upper extremities (carpal tunnel syndroms) in 1997, and a separate injury to ber back in 1998. An administrative law judge granted disability benefits for the carpal tunnel claim, but denied benefits on the back injury claim. The Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed the ALJ's findings on carpal tunnel, but found Allegrezza sustained some loss of wage-earning capacity due to her back injury. Allegrezza appealed the Commission's decision to the circuit court, which affirmed the Commission in all respects. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Commission. Finding no error in the Commission's judgment or the appellate courts' decicions affirming the Commission, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Allegrezza v. Greenville Manufacturing Company" on Justia Law

Shirley Johnson sued the City of Belzoni and two city employees for employment discrimination and sexual harassment. A jury rendered a verdict in Johnson's favor, resulting in a monetary award against each of the three defendants severally. Defendants appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The City appealed from the circuit court's order granting Johnson's motion to enforce the defendants' supersedeas bond against the City alone. Finding that the trial court erred in enforcing a deficient supersedeas bond against the City to satisfy the judgments against the other two co-defendants, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a correction. View "City of Belzoni v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of defendant Vaughn Bowden, PA's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs Cherie Blackmore and Diane Young sued their former employer, Vaughn Bowden, regarding the presence of toxic mold in two of the firm's offices in which they worked. They also argued they were exposed to sewer gas and a natural gas leak. Plaintiffs also sued Lowry Development and its owner who owned a second building in which Blackmore and Young claimed they were injured. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege any facts by defendants' which rose to the level of intent that would remove their claims from the exclusivity of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Act. Plaintiffs' only avenue for relief against the firm was in workers' compensation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in dismissing plaintiffs' complaint. View "Vaughn & Bowden, PA v. Young" on Justia Law

Billy Dale Hill appealed his motion for post-conviction relief. He claimed that the circuit court had destroyed biological evidence without notifying him as required by statute. The evidence in question was a laboratory slide containing what was purported to be sperm cells collected during a 1974 autopsy. The only relief sought by Hill was that the Supreme Court “order appropriate remedies and impose sanctions” because of the failure to give proper notice. Given the uncontradicted proof that the circuit court did not have the evidence in question, the Supreme Court found no basis for Hill’s claim, and affirmed the trial court. View "Hill v. Mississippi" on Justia Law