Davis v. Missis. State Dep't of Health
| Docket Number: | 2001-SA-01914-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-SA-01914-COA ; 2001-CT-01914-SCT ; 2001-CT-01914-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-08-2003 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Termination of employee - Section 25-9-127(1) - Due process Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, J. Concurs in Result Only: King, P.J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-28-2001 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE EMPLOYEE APPEALS BOARD AND REINSTATED THE TERMINATION OF DAVIS. Case Number: 251-1-25(CIV) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Daniel L. Davis |
DAROLD L. RUTLAND |
||
| Appellee: | Mississippi State Department of Health | ROMAINE LEVEAN RICHARDS |
|
|
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: | Termination of employee - Section 25-9-127(1) - Due process |
| Summary of the Facts: | Daniel Davis, a disease intervention specialist, was terminated by the Mississippi State Department of Health after a sixteen-year-old female patient reported that she had been treated inappropriately by Davis. He appealed to the Employee Appeals Board which reversed and reinstated Davis. The MSDH appealed to circuit court which reversed the decision of the EAB and reinstated Davis' termination. Davis appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Termination Davis argues that the court’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Section 25-9-127 (1) prohibits an employee governed by the Statewide Personnel System from being dismissed except for inefficiency or other good cause shown. In this case, the hearing officer heard two diametrically opposed versions of the incident, one presented by Davis and one presented by the patient, and there were no eyewitnesses to confirm either story. Witness credibility is largely a matter for the hearing officer. Once the hearing officer rejected the patient's statement, it was reasonable for him to infer that the reasons given for Davis' termination were not true. In addition, the hearing officer's conclusion was supported by his finding that MSDH's failure to reinterview the patient constituted insufficient agency fact-finding prior to the termination decision. Therefore, the court’s decision is reversed. Issue 2: Due process Davis argues he was denied due process regarding the conduct and timing of the pre-termination hearing, because he was not allowed to call witnesses and his attorney was not allowed to speak and because he was not afforded an opportunity for a hearing until over twenty days from the suspension. Due process does not require that a pre-termination hearing be a full-blown formal adversarial proceeding. Davis had the opportunity to make arguments, put on witnesses, and cross-examine witnesses at the EAB hearing. In addition, MSDH was not required to afford Davis the opportunity for a hearing within twenty days. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
