Estate of Johnson v. Chatelain, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-00642-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-30-2006 Opinion Author: WALLER, P.J. Holding: REVERSED AND RENDERED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Employment status Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., COBB, P.J., DIAZ, CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: EASLEY, J. JOINED BY SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., CARLSON, DICKINSON, AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-07-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment Case Number: 251-99-69CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL JOHNSON, M.D. |
MILDRED M. MORRIS, MOLLY M. WALKER |
||
| Appellee: | JOSHUA COSBY CHATELAIN, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND ADULT NEXT FRIEND, THERESA CHATELAIN | J. ANDREW PHELPS, WILLIAM L. DUCKER |
|
|
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 - Employment status |
| Summary of the Facts: | Theresa Chatelain filed a medical malpractice suit in Hinds County Circuit Court against Dr. Samuel Johnson, alleging that Dr. Johnson performed an unnecessary, merely cosmetic, surgery on her son, thereby causing unnecessary pain and anguish which amounted to gross negligence. Theresa asked for an award of punitive damages in addition to actual damages. The circuit court denied Dr. Johnson’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The circuit court denied Dr. Johnson’s motion for summary judgment because it found that a question of fact existed as to Dr. Johnson’s status as a state employee. In determining whether a physician is acting as a state employee, the court considers the nature of the function performed; extent of state's interest; degree of control and direction exercised by the state over the employee; level of judgment and discretion required to perform act; and compensation received for services rendered. Dr. Johnson did not have a private patient relationship with Chatelain’s son; rather, he served a public function by providing care for a patient who had little ability to pay. UMMC is fulfilling its operational purpose under section 37-115-31 by providing care to Chatelain, regardless of his ability to pay. The fact that Dr. Johnson was obligated to fulfill his duty as teacher and supervisor of residents at the time of the surgery and throughout Chatelain’s treatment shows a certain amount of control exercised by UMMC. Dr. Johnson exercised some amount of judgment and discretion in his treatment, observations and diagnosis of the child. Dr. Johnson was not an independent contractor and billing for physician care was done through the medical departments. Considering these factors, Dr. Johnson fits well within the definition of a state employee who enjoys immunity. Therefore, the circuit court's conclusion that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Johnson was a state employee and the subsequent denial of summary judgment was clearly in error. Johnson was employed by the State at the time in question and the laws of the 1992 Extraordinary Session provide immunity to physicians at the time of the incident. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
