Meeks v. Miller, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-00200-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-CT-00200-SCT2005-CT-00200-SCT2005-CA-00200-COA
Oral Argument: 03-08-2006
 

 

* 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: 06-27-2006
Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J.
Holding: Reversed and Rendered

Additional Case Information: Topic: Medical malpractice - Tort Claims Act - Employment status
Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Dissenting Author : IRVING, J.
Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J.
Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-22-2004
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Winston Kidd
Disposition: ON REMAND, CIRCUIT COURT FOUND THAT DR. MEEKS WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE AND NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY.
Case Number: 251-95-178-CIV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: W. MARK MEEKS, M. D.




PAUL HOBART KIMBLE, J. LAWSON HESTER, C. YORK CRAIG



 

Appellee: SHEILA FOX MILLER, PEGGY FOX WATZ AND GARY MERKELL FOX, NEXT FRIENDS AND SOLE BENEFICIARIES OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF MERKELL M. FOX BARRY STUART ZIRULNIK, CARLTON W. REEVES  

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

Summary of the Facts: In Miller v. Meeks, 762 So.2d 302 (Miss. 2000), a medical malpractice case, the Supreme Court adopted five factors to be weighed to determine whether Dr. Meeks may be held liable under the Tort Claims Act as an employee of the University of Mississippi Medical Center. After remand, the trial court allowed additional discovery. Dr. Meeks again moved for summary judgment. The judge denied the motion. Dr. Meeks filed an interlocutory appeal, which was granted by the Supreme Court and deflected to the Court of Appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The five factors to be weighed to determine whether Dr. Meeks may be held liable under the Tort Claims Act include the nature of the function performed by the employee; the extent of the state's interest and involvement in the function; the degree of control and direction exercised by the state over the employee; whether the act complained of involved the use of judgment and discretion; and whether the physician receives compensation, either directly or indirectly, from the patient for professional services rendered. The nature of the function performed by the employee, weighs in favor of the determination that Dr. Meeks was an employee and not an independent contractor in the treatment of Mr. Fox. An internist such as Dr. Meeks typically has a clinical practice. The patient comes to the internist because of a particular health problem or for regular medical examinations. The care provided is not reduced to an evaluation and then a procedure or an operation. The state had an interest in the employment of Dr. Meeks by UMMC and in the operation of the Pavilion where he provided clinical services to Mr. Fox, since the state has an interest in hiring and retaining highly skilled physicians to teach. The degree of control and direction exercised by the state over the employee weighs in favor of the determination that Dr. Meeks was an employee. While being contractually required to maintain membership with the UMCA, Dr. Meeks was prohibited from practicing medicine outside his employment at UMMC. Further, he could only admit patients to UMMC and no other hospital. Physicians exercise a significant amount of judgment and discretion in treating, diagnosing and observing their patients and so the fourth factor, whether the act complained of involved the use of judgment and discretion, weighs in favor of the determination that Dr. Meeks was an employee. Under the terms of Dr. Meeks’ employment contract his practice through the UMCA was a method of supplementing his salary as an assistant professor of medicine. The income he earned through UMCA and the practice plan was derived from fees collected. Dr. Meeks did not receive any compensation from Mr. Fox for the services rendered because the bills were sent through the Division of General Internal Medicine. Because each factor weighs in favor of Dr. Meeks, Dr. Meeks was an employee of UMMC and the trial court erred when it denied Dr. Meeks’ summary judgment.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court