Lochridge v. Pioneer Health Services of Monroe County, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01529-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 11-30-2011 | |
* 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: 04-24-2012 Opinion Author: Russell, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Malicious prosecution - Unlawful removal of personal property - Termination - Malice - Reckless disregard - Probable cause - Reasonable grounds Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Ishee, Roberts and Fair, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Dissent Joined By : Joined In Part by Griffis, P.J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J., Concurs in Part and in the Result Without Separate Written Opinion Concurs in Result Only: Maxwell, J., Concurs in Result Only Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-17-2010 Appealed from: Monroe County Circuit Court Judge: Jim S. Pounds Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE ON MALICIOUSPROSECUTION CLAIM Case Number: CV08-531-PM |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Linda W. Lochridge |
JIM WAIDE
LUTHER C. FISHER, IV |
|
|
| Appellee: | Pioneer Health Services of Monroe County, Inc. | J. TUCKER MITCHELL KEELY ROSE MCNULTY BRUCE B. SMITH MARISA CAMPBELL ATKINSON MATTHEW TAYLOR BIGGERS | ||
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: | Malicious prosecution - Unlawful removal of personal property - Termination - Malice - Reckless disregard - Probable cause - Reasonable grounds |
| Summary of the Facts: | Linda Lochridge worked as a registered nurse at one of Pioneer Health Services of Monroe County, Inc.’s assisted-living facilities. Lochridge was considered a good employee and maintained positive relationships with patients and staff. On May 4, 2007, she met with Susan Grimes, director of the assisted living facility, and Linda Smith, director of human resources. Grimes and Smith informed Lochridge her position had been eliminated due to Pioneer’s restructuring and cost-saving measures. Lochridge surrendered her keys to the facility. Lochridge was escorted back to the assisted-living facility, where other employees helped her load what she could into her car. Later that evening, Lochridge shared dinner with friends, some of whom were her former Pioneer coworkers. It is undisputed that Lochridge had left several personal items at the facility; therefore, the Pioneer employees at the dinner offered to help her retrieve the remaining items. At approximately 9:00 p.m., Lochridge and four to five Pioneer employees went to the assisted-living facility. According to Lochridge, when they arrived, Pauline Rowe, one of the nurses on duty, allowed Lochridge and the other Pioneer employees to enter the facility. Cindy Beasley, another nurse, loaned Lochridge her key to the nursing office so Lochridge could retrieve her items from that office. Subsequently, Lochridge called Grimes’s cell phone and left a voice message, stating she had obtained her remaining items from the facility. According to Grimes, after listening to Lochridge’s voice message at approximately 11:30 p.m., she called the facility and spoke with Ollie Burroughs about what had happened. Grimes then called her supervisor, Steve Fontaine. Fontaine instructed her to either call Lochridge and ask her to return the items or call the police. Prior to Grimes calling Lochridge, she called the Aberdeen Police Department and the Monroe County Sherriff’s Department, stating Lochridge had entered the facility without permission and had stolen items that belonged to Pioneer. According to Grimes, she then called Lochridge “to inform her of pending charges” and to request that Lochridge return the items. The following morning Grimes received a voice message from Lochridge indicating that she had returned some items to the facility. Subsequently, Grimes provided Major Quinell Shumpert written reports of the incident, which included a list of the property allegedly taken and assessed a value of $3,000.00. Based on the information from Grimes, Major Shumpert signed an affidavit charging Lochridge with burglary, and the APD issued an arrest warrant for Lochridge. That same day, Lochridge turned herself in to the APD. Upon arrival, she provided Major Shumpert with receipts for several items she removed from Pioneer that belonged to her. Lochridge also provided Major Shumpert with some file documents that allegedly belonged to Pioneer. On January 18, 2008, the grand jury of Monroe County indicted Lochridge under section 97-17-33 for burglary. The indictment alleged Lochridge unlawfully entered Pioneer’s facility and stole Pioneer’s lawn furniture, patient files, and fax machine. The charges were retired to file on February 29, 2008, and were dismissed with prejudice officially on September 11, 2008. The next month, Lochridge filed her complaint against Pioneer, alleging malicious prosecution. After a hearing, the circuit court granted Pioneer’s motion for summary judgment. Lochridge appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The elements of a malicious-prosecution claim are: the institution of a proceeding; by, or at the insistence of the defendant; the termination of such proceedings in the plaintiff’s favor; malice in instituting the proceedings; want of probable cause for the proceedings; and the suffering of injury or damage as a result of the prosecution. The circuit court found it undisputed that Lochridge had removed Pioneer’s personal property from the facility, including patient files and marketing material. Therefore, the circuit court held that Lochridge could not prove either malice or want of probable cause. The requirement of termination is satisfied by showing that the suit upon which the malicious-prosecution claim is based was abandoned. Pioneer submitted a letter to the District Attorney’s office stating “[w]e do not wish to pursue criminal charges against Linda Lochridge at this time.” Notwithstanding that Pioneer could have pursued its criminal allegations by filing a subsequent affidavit against Lochridge, it did not; thus, the allegations made by Pioneer resulting in the civil action before us were clearly abandoned. With regard to malice, the jury may infer malice from the facts of the case. Malice may be inferred as well from the fact that a defendant may have acted with reckless disregard for the plaintiff’s rights. In this case, the circuit court incorrectly found the malice element lacking because Lochridge indisputably had returned Pioneer’s patient files, which were not medical files, to the police. It is disputed whether the files returned by Lochridge were documents taken separately or whether they were documents located in personal property belonging to Lochridge. Whether Lochridge returned any of the items is irrelevant to whether Pioneer instituted the burglary prosecution for an improper purpose. Further, the depositions of several witnesses show genuine factual disputes on the malice element. For example, Grimes characterized her reason for reporting Lochridge to the police as a “business decision.” This statement alone raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Pioneer instituted the burglary prosecution for a purpose other than to bring Lochridge to justice. The facts are also in dispute on whether Pioneer acted with reckless disregard for Lochridge’s rights. Grimes provided the police with a list of items allegedly stolen by Lochridge. On the list provided to the police were items Grimes knew belonged to Lochridge. Lochridge asserts Pioneer lacked probable cause to charge her with burglary because several witnesses stated she was allowed to enter the facility. Pioneer argues it had reasonable grounds to believe Lochridge was guilty because she returned items when she turned herself in to the police. However, the evidence is disputed regarding whether these items returned by Lochridge belonged to her. The circuit court incorrectly focused on Lochridge’s alleged actions in finding the probable-cause element lacking. Several factual disputes exist on each element of the alleged burglary. For example, the witnesses dispute whether Pioneer had an honest belief or reasonable grounds to believe Lochridge unlawfully entered the facility and removed Pioneer’s personal property. Lochridge asserts she knocked, and Rowe allowed her inside. Rowe agreed with this assertion. The facts are also disputed on whether Pioneer had an honest belief or reasonable grounds to believe Lochridge unlawfully removed its personal property. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Lochridge, jurors could reasonably find Pioneer lacked an honest belief or reasonable grounds to believe Lochridge committed any element of burglary. In granting Pioneer’s motion for summary judgment, the circuit court failed to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to Lochridge. Thus, the case is reversed and remanded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
