Barksdale v. Carroll
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01859-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-01859-SCT2004-CA-01859-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 01-12-2006 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-29-2006 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Tort Claims Act - Employment status - Section 11-46-1(f) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): BARNES, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-15-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT AWARDED TO DEFENDANT DOCTOR Case Number: 251-00-001373 |
|
| Note: | The appellant's motion for rehearing is denied. The original opinion issued in this case is withdrawn, and the following opinion is substituted therefor. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMES A. BARKSDALE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF LISA RENEE BARKSDALE, DECEASED |
ALBEN N. HOPKINS |
||
| Appellee: | DAVID CARROLL, M.D. | R. MARK HODGES |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Medical malpractice - Tort Claims Act - Employment status - Section 11-46-1(f) |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Lisa Barksdale was involved in an automobile accident and was taken to the University of Mississippi Medical Center. After she died, her husband, James Barksdale, brought suit individually and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries against UMMC and numerous physicians. Barksdale settled with UMMC. This action arises out of a second amended complaint against Dr. David Carroll which alleged causes of action for malpractice, negligence and medical negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and failure to obtain informed consent. Dr. Carroll filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Barksdale appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Barksdale argues that Dr. Carroll was an independent contractor and could be sued in his individual capacity. He argues that Dr. Carroll was not an employee because Dr. Carroll did not receive compensation from UMMC and was not a member of a departmental practice plan. Under the plain language of section 11-46-1(f), compensation is not a necessary component of employee status. Further, a physician's participation or non-participation in a departmental practice plan is not fully dispositive of the physician's employment status. A holding that a physician must be a member of a departmental practice plan in order to be considered a state employee would be inconsistent with the statute's inclusion of uncompensated officers, employees, or servants of the state in the statutory definition of employee. An uncompensated physician like Dr. Carroll would have no reason to be a member of a departmental practice plan. Section 11-46-1(f) specifically includes uncompensated officers, employees, or servants of the state in the definition of employee. Therefore, membership in a departmental practice plan is not required for a UMMC physician to have state employee status under section 11-46-1(f). The Miller factors used to determine Dr. Carroll's status strongly weigh in favor of Dr. Carroll's status as a state employee. Dr. Carroll, in his role as a UMMC faculty member and attending physician, supervised and consulted with the attending physician. Dr. Carroll's function in Barksdale's care in no way involved his private medical practice. The State had a strong interest and involvement in Dr. Carroll's function as an attending faculty physician. UMMC exercised significant control and direction over Dr. Carroll. Dr. Carroll played a small role with regard to Lisa Barksdale. Dr. Carroll assumed a supervisory role in Lisa Barksdale's care entirely without remuneration. Given these factors, Dr. Carroll was acting as an employee of UMMC and was personally immune from suit for his acts or omissions concerning Lisa Barksdale’s death. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
