Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This interlocutory appeal involved two consolidated actions in which the trial court denied competing summary judgment motions. The case arose from University of Mississippi Medical Center's (UMMC) intent to purchase a platform linear accelerator system and to make renovations to its basement to house the new accelerator. UMMC represented that the accelerator would be an important aspect to the planned radiation oncology residency program. UMMC applied for a Certificate of Need (CON) to get the project started. Jackson HMA (HMA) and St. Dominic-Jackson Memorial Hospital (St. Dominic) filed a request for a public hearing in response to UMMC's CON application. The Mississippi State Department of Health (MSDH) thereafter sought an official opinion from the Attorney General (AG) on the issue of the CON statutes' applicability to UMMC. The Attorney General issued an opinion opining that UMMC was not subject to CON laws, and that it did not have to file an application for a CON. The AG issued a second opinion opining that there was no express exemption for UMMC within the CON laws, but that it was within the MSDH's power to make determinations of reviewability under the CON laws which carve out exemptions for equipment and/or services deemed necessary by UMMC. HMA and St. Dominic's filed a complaint with the Chancery Court requesting declaratory relief over the issue of whether the CON statutes applied to UMMC, and that MSDH had no authority to exempt UMMC from obtaining a CON. UMMC countered with its motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) approved the project and had exclusive authority to" manage and control" UMMC, and was not subordinate to the MSDH. Finding genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the CON statutes applied to UMMC, the chancellor denied both motions. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the CON statues applied to UMMC and that MSDH does have authority to create a "teaching" exception regarding when UMMC is required to apply for a CON. Therefore, the Court did not reach the question of whether the application of the CON statutes to UMMC unconstitutionally infringed on IHL's constitutionally vested authority to "manage and control" UMMC. View "Jackson HMA, LLC v. Miss. St. Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Southern Health Corporation of Houston, Inc. d/b/a Trace Regional Hospital, and Marcia Morgan, a registered nurse. Aggrieved, Ruth Crosthwait appealed to the Supreme Court, which in turn assigned this case to the Court of Appeals. In a four-four plurality opinion (two judges not participating), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. The case arose from a slip and fall incident at the hospital: Crosthwait was admitted to Trace Regional Hospital for treatment of fluctuating blood sugar stemming from diabetes. Crosthwait was eighty-two years old, lived alone, and generally could walk without assistance. While she was hospitalized, Crosthwait's attending physician instructed her to ring a bell to have a nurse assist her when she rose from her hospital bed. In 2008, Crosthwait was preparing to leave the hospital, and she decided to take a shower. Crosthwait called for Marcia Morgan to assist her with undressing. Crosthwait walked into the bathroom unassisted. Morgan offered Crosthwait a shower stool, which she accepted. Morgan then left and returned with a chair, which she placed in the shower. While Crosthwait showered, Morgan told Crosthwait she would have to leave to attend another patient. When Morgan returned, she turned off the shower and Crosthwait exited the shower. It was undisputed that the fall caused Crosthwait significant injury, including a broken hip and a loss of mobility and independence. Crosthwait filed suit against the hospital and Morgan. The hospital and Morgan filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Crosthwait's action was for medical malpractice, and summary judgment was proper because, among other things, Crosthwait needed expert testimony to establish the duty of care owed to her by the hospital and to show whether that duty had been breached. Crosthwait responded that the claim was for ordinary negligence, for which expert testimony was not required. The circuit court granted the hospital’s motion, and Crosthwait appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. View "Crosthwait v. Southern Health Corporation of Houston, Inc." on Justia Law

Laura Shontelle Barnes was employed as an elementary school teacher with the Taylorsville Elementary School in the Smith County School District (District) for eleven years before she was terminated in 2009. Barnes was terminated for refusing to take a drug test, which was a violation of the District’s drug and alcohol policy. The Smith County School Board (Board) held a hearing and later affirmed the District’s Superintendent of Education’s decision to terminate Barnes’s employment. Aggrieved, Barnes appealed the Board’s decision to the chancery court. The chancery court reversed the Board’s decision and reinstated Barnes’s employment, finding that the Board’s decision was arbitrary or capricious and was not supported by substantial evidence. The Board appealed. In a six-four decision, the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered the chancery court’s holding, finding that the Board’s decision to affirm the superintendent’s termination of Barnes based on her refusal to submit to a drug test was not arbitrary or capricious. Barnes filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied. Barnes appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals failed to properly consider all relevant evidence that would have precluded termination of Barnes. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Smith County Sch. Dist. v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Petitioner Troy Lofton alleged he suffered from asbestosis as a result of exposure to the Defendant's product, Flosal, during the course of his employment on various oil and gas drilling rigs. Petitioner filed suit in 2004, alleging two theories of product liability (design defect and inadequate warning), as well as claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Petitioner on his claims of design defect and negligent infliction of emotional distress, with one hundred percent of the liability assigned to Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP, successor-in-interest to ConocoPhillips Company, formerly known as Phillips Petroleum Company, and Phillips 66 Company, formerly doing business as Drilling Specialties Company (CPChem) and total damages in the amount of $15,200,000. CPChem's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and its motion for new trial and/or remittur were denied. Aggrieved, CPChem filed this appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial due to the trial court's error in allowing Petitioner's counsel to read from drilling records that were not admitted into evidence during the cross-examination of CPChem’s expert pulmonologist. View "Phillips 66 Co. v. Lofton" on Justia Law

Defendant Justin Springer was convicted of capital murder by a jury in the Circuit Court of Lee County on May 6, 2011. The underlying felony was burglary. For this conviction, he was sentenced to life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, without the possibility of parole. After the trial court's denial of his post-trial motions, Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Finding that the verdict against him was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "Springer v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Ernest and Bonnie Harland filed suit in the Chancery Court of Lafayette County seeking to have a "corrected" warranty deed set aside; to vacate three lots from the official plat of Long Meadow subdivision; or to validate the protective covenants included with their original deed. The chancellor set aside the "corrected" deed and validated the Harlands' original covenants. The Long Meadow Homeowners' Association appealed the chancellor's judgment, and the Supreme Court assigned the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, found no error and affirmed the judgment of the chancery court. The Supreme Court granted Long Meadow’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Having reviewed the briefs and record in this appeal, the Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, and used the opportunity of this case to discuss precedent as it related to the Harlands' equitable-estoppel claim. View "Long Meadow Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. Harland" on Justia Law

In 2009, Charles Larry McGraw filed a personal-injury action against four sand suppliers: Clark Sand Company, Inc.; Mississippi Valley Silica Co., Inc.; Precision Packaging, Inc.; and Custom Aggregates and Grinding, Inc. McGraw alleged the four defendants' sand caused his lung disease, silicosis. On the day of the trial, after the jury had heard the parties' opening statements, the court recessed, and the parties reached a settlement agreement. Subsequently, McGraw filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint to add his wife as a plaintiff and American Optical Corporation as an additional defendant. He then filed an amended motion for leave to amend his complaint (First Amended Complaint) to modify his request to add four more defendants: Lonestar Industries, Inc.; Specialty Sand Company; Pearl Sands, Inc.; and Pearl Specialty Sand, Inc. In early 2010, the trial court granted McGraw's amended motion and allowed him to add the five new defendants to the complaint. McGraw later filed a Second Amended Complaint, which added a sixth defendant, Dependable Abrasives, Inc., without seeking leave of court. All six defendants petitioned the Supreme Court for interlocutory appeal concerning the trial court's order denying their Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint and Dismiss First Amended Complaint. The defendants argued that, because the original parties settled with McGraw prior to his motions for leave to amend, the trial court improperly allowed the filing of the First Amended Complaint to add new parties. The defendants also argue that, because McGraw did not seek court approval in filing his Second Amended Complaint, that complaint should be struck. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing McGraw to file his Second Amended Complaint, because he was required to obtain court approval. However, the Court found that the trial court did comply with the rules of procedure when it allowed McGraw to file his First Amended Complaint. The Court therefore affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and reversed the denial of the motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint. View "Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. McGraw" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Tippah County, Mississippi, fifty-fouryear-old Roger Green was convicted of two counts of sexual battery and two counts of touching a child for lustful purposes involving D.W., Green's ten-year-old stepdaughter. Following denial of Green's "Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or in the Alternative For a New Trial," Green filed this appeal. Before the Supreme Court, Green argued that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of other sexual offenses through the testimony of four other minor girls whom he allegedly inappropriately touched. He also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges against him. Finding no error from trial nor an abuse of discretion by the trial court, the Supreme Court affirmed Green's conviction. View "Green v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

The daughter of Mark Fails and Laura Fails transferred from Jefferson Davis County School District to Lamar County School District, after obtaining consent from the school boards of both districts. Four years later, the School Board passed a resolution that Jefferson Davis County residents would no longer be permitted to transfer to other school districts. The following year, the Superintendent of Education for the School District published an announcement in the local newspaper informing parents of Jefferson Davis County School District students that all transfers had been revoked. Although three of the School Board members represented to Mark Fails that this did not affect his daughter's transfer status, an interim conservator, appointed by the governor to oversee Jefferson Davis County Schools, represented to Mark Fails that it was the intent of the School Board to revoke all previously granted transfer petitions. Mark Fails attended a School Board meeting to appeal the revocation of his daughter's petition for transfer. However, the conservator prohibited the School Board from voting on the child's petition for transfer. Prior to the School Board meeting, the Failses had obtained Lamar County residency, and the student had continued to attend Lamar County Schools legally, and without interruption. Despite this fact, the Failses appealed the School Board's decision to the Circuit Court of Jefferson Davis County. The circuit court and the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the School Board's decision. Given that the Failses have represented to the circuit court and the Supreme Court that they have since moved into the Lamar County School District, and that fact was not disputed the issue of revocation was considered moot. View "Fails v. Jefferson Davis County Public School Board" on Justia Law

This interlocutory appeal challenged the dismissal of plaintiffs' Deborah and Harold Knapp's medical malpractice claim related to a slip and fall in a hospital bathroom. The Knapps sued the hospital after a 2006 incident that had her admitted. She slipped and fell on a wet bathroom floor, allegedly from a leaky toilet. She was transferred to the Behavioral Health Unit, and while there, was attacked by another patient. Based on these two events, the Knapps listed "negligence," "breach of warranty" and "gross negligence, punitive damages, etc." as grounds for their complaint. Finding that the claim at issue did not involve professional negligence, and that the trial court properly recognized the parties' discovery obligations, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Knapp v. St. Dominic-Jackson Memorial Hospital" on Justia Law