Payne v. Miss. Dep't. of Mental Health
| Docket Number: | 2006-SA-00548-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-04-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Employee termination - Substantial evidence - Violation of Mississippi Vulnerable Adults Act - Due process Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-01-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: THE DECISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARD AFFIRMED Case Number: 251-04-1313 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | FREDRICK PAYNE |
HENRY C. CLAY III |
||
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH | GENE W. ROWZEE, JR. |
|
|
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: | Employee termination - Substantial evidence - Violation of Mississippi Vulnerable Adults Act - Due process |
| Summary of the Facts: | Fredrick Payne, a psychologist in the Pecan Grove ICF/MR Unit, Psychology Department, working primarily with retarded patients, was terminated from his employment for physical abuse of a vulnerable adult. A hearing officer found that an incident occurred when Payne verbally and physically assaulted a patient in a wheelchair. Subsequently, the matter was upheld by the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board. The circuit court affirmed the termination of Payne. Payne appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Payne argues that there was a lack of substantial evidence before the EAB to support the upholding of his termination. Payne testified that he attempted to restrain the patient out of necessity and did not use excessive force during the incident. Witnesses testified on behalf of Payne regarding Payne’s past work performance and their own observations of the demeanor and tendencies of the particular patient that Payne was accused of abusing. Several witnesses testified on behalf of the Department that the manner in which Payne restrained the mentally retarded client was not an approved restraint by the standards of the Techniques for Managing Aggressive Behavior training manual. Photographs taken by the risk manager on the day of the incident were introduced at the hearing, depicting red marks found on the patient’s neck. Two eyewitnesses testified that the client did not try to bite Payne, in contradiction to Payne’s testimony. Based on the evidence before the EAB, the decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Payne also argues that he was terminated for a violation of the Mississippi Vulnerable Adults Act, and that his termination based upon a violation of the Act was improper. Because no reference was made within the termination notices regarding Payne’s conduct in reference to the Vulnerable Adults Act, Payne was not terminated for a criminal violation under the Act. Payne argues that he was denied due process when he received notice that he was placed on leave but not informed of the type of leave he was placed on or given a formal notice of suspension. Payne was placed on administrative leave with pay pending the resolution of the investigation, which an agency may grant at its discretion. Once the investigation was concluded, Payne was properly noticed of the Department’s intention to terminate his employment. Payne was then given an opportunity to rebut the charges against him. Thus, the EAB did not err in deciding this issue. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
