I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - I A- 0 1 1 1 1 - S CT S I DNE Y C AR L TON GOR TON, M . D.
v. S HUM AERA RA NC

E, I NDI VI DUA L L Y, AN

D ON BEHALF OF DEXT

ER J ORDAN, J

R. , DECEAS

ED
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 22/ 2009 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . JA N N IE M . L E W IS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HUM P HREYS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : G A Y E N E L L L O T T C U R R IE AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : P RE CI OUS T YR ONE M AR T I N GERALD A. M UM F ORD NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 01/ 27/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. S hu m aera R ance fi l ed a co m plai nt i n the C i rcui tC ou rto f H um ph reys C ou nty against D r . Si dney C ar l t on G or t on, D r . D ai s y T hom as , H um phr eys C ou nty M emori al H os pi t al ( H C M H ) , and J ohn D oes 1- 5 f orthe w r ongf

ul de ath of

he rt en- m onth- ol d s on, D ext erJ or dan, J r . D r . G or t on f

i l ed a mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm entthatal l eged he w as empl oyed by G ree n w o o d L eflore H o sp it al, an en ti ty co v ere d b y the M issi ssipp i T o rtC lai m s A ct (M T C A ). See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 11- 46- 1 t o 11- 46- 23 ( R ev. 2002)
. D r . G or t on ar gued thatR ance had f ai l ed t o pr ovi de a ti m el y not i ce of cl ai m underthe M T C A and thatthe M T C A ’ s one- year

### 2

s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s h a d e x p ir e d , b a rr in g R a n c e ’s c la im s . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 1 1 (3 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e tr ia l c o u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. ¶2. T hi s C our tgr ant ed D r . G or t on’ s pet i t i on f or an i nter l ocu t ory appe al
. W e f i nd no genui ne i s s ue of m at eri al f acti n D r . G or t on’ s as s ert i ons thatG r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al
e m p lo y e d h im a t th e tim e o f th e a lle g e d ly to rt io u s c o n d u c t, an d th a t th e M T C A a p p lied to R a n c e ’s c laim s a g a in st D r. G o rto n . B e c a u se R a n c e faile d to p ro v id e tim e ly n o tice o f c laim t o G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al , and hercom pl ai ntw as fi l ed out s i de t he M T C A ’ s one- year sta tu te o f lim itatio n s, w e re v e rse th e d e n ial o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t a n d re n d e r a ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f D r. G o rt o n . FACTS ¶3. R ance ’ s compl ai ntal l eged thatJ or dan had r ece i ved tr eatm entand tr agi cal l y di ed at H C M H . O n A ugus t7, 2007, J or dan w as admi t t ed t o H C M H w i th vom i t i ng and s i gns of pneumoni a. Shor t l y ther eaf t er , J or dan expe r i ence d di f f i cul ty br eathi ng. J ordan’ s tr eat i ng p h y sici an w as D r. T h o m as, bu t th e m ed ical reco rds re fl ec t th at Jo rda n w as a d m itted to D r. G o rt o n ’s serv ice a n d the c ase w as d iscu ssed w ith h im
. E arly the fo ll o w ing m o rnin g , D r. T h o m a s d e ter m in e d th a t Jo rd a n n e e d e d a d d iti o n a l m e d ica l a s s is ta n c e a n d re q u e ste d a ir tr ans por t at i on t o t he U ni ver s i ty of M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent er . J or dan di ed bef or e l eavi ng H C M H ’s g ro u n d s . H is a u to p s y re p o rt s ta te d th a t h is c a u s e o f d e a th w a s p n e u m o n ia
. ¶4
. O n J ul y 1, 2 00 8, Ran c e s e r ve d a n ot i c e o f c l a i m on the c hi e f

exec ut i ve of

f i cer of H C M H a s r equi r ed by the M T C A
. M i s s . Code A nn. § 11- 46- 11( 3) ( R ev. 2002)
. She f i l ed
su it o n N o v e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 8 . R a n c e c laim e d th a t, du e to a lac k o f a d e q u a te a n d im m e d iate
m edi cal car e, J or dan had e xper i enced unneces s ary pai n, s uf f er i ng, and dea th. R ance

### 3

con t end ed thatthe d efendan t s’ con du ctcon st i tuted neg l i gen ce, gross negli gen ce, and reckl ess di s r egar d f

orJ or dan’ s r i ght s , j us t i f

yi ng puni t i ve damages
. D r . G or t on f i l ed a s epar at e ans w er and af f i r m at i ve def

ens es , i ncl udi ng s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , j ur i s di ct i on, and venue underthe M T C A
. L at er , D r . G ort on fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s or , i n the al t ernat i ve, a mot i on f or
s um m ary j udgm entw i th a t t ache d c ontr act s s how i ng hi s s t atus as an empl oyee of G r eenw ood L e fl o re H o s p ita l, a g o v e rn m e n t- o w n e d h o s p ita l s u b je c t to th e M T C A
. ¶5. R ance f

i l ed a r es pons e t o the m ot i on. She a s s ert ed that , de s pi t e havi ng c onduct ed a tho rou g h inv esti g ati o n p ri o r t o fi li n g su it , sh e h ad fail ed to d isco v er D r. G o rt o n ’s empl oym entw i th G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al unt i l the mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm enthad been f i l ed. R ance a dm i t t ed thatD r . G or t on ha d e nt er ed i nt o a c ontr actw i t h G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al , butar gued t hati tpr ovi ded f oronl y a court es y m ember s hi p on G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al ’ s s t af

f and pr i vi l eges on the ac t i ve medi cal s t af f of H C M H . I n a
su p p lem en tal resp o n se fil ed o n Ju n e 3 , 2 0 0 9 , R an ce asse rt ed that d isco v ery w as n ec essa ry to d eterm ine th e d ates o f D r. G o rto n ’s e m p loy m en t by G ree n w o o d L eflore H o sp it al. D r. G o rt o n fi l ed sup plem ental m at eri al s i n repl y to the respon se t o the m oti on forsum m ary j udgm ent . A f

t era hea r i ng, the tr i al c our te nt er ed an or derthats t at ed the mot i on w as deni ed beca us e a ge nui ne i ssue of mat er i al f actw as i n di s put e; the or derdi d notpr ovi de f ur ther
e x p la n a tio n . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 6
. T h e sta n d a rd o f re v iew fo r th e g ra n t o r d e n ial o f a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t is d e n o v o . Str ingerv. T

r app , 3 0 S o . 3 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 1 (M iss
. 2 0 1 0 ). S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t p ro p e rly
m ay be gr ant ed w her e “the pl eadi ngs , deposi t i ons , answ er s t o i nt err ogat or i es and admi s s i ons

### 4

on f i l e, t ogetherw i th the aff i dav i t s, if

any, s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any mat e r i a l f

a c ta nd tha tthe movi ng pa r ty i s e nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a matt e ro f l a w . ” M . R. C. P. 5 6 (c). “If n o g en u ine issu e o f m aterial fac t exists an d the m o v ing p arty is en ti tl ed to
s u m m a ry j u d g m e n ta s a m a t t e ro f l a w , s u m m a ry j u d g m e n ts h o u l d b e e n t e r e d i n th a tp a r ty 's f avor . ” T r app , 3 0 S o . 3 d a t 3 4 1 . T h e b u rd e n re s ts o n th e m o v in g p a rt y . Id
. T h e tri al co u rt
v ie w s a ll e v id e n c e b e fo re it in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . V aughn v. Miss. B ap tist

Med. Ctr. , 2 0 S o . 3 d 6 4 5 , 6 4 9 -5 0 (M is s . 2 0 0 9 ). ¶7. “O nce the abs ence of genui ne m at er i al i s s ues has been s how n, the bur den of r ebutt al fal l s up on the no n-m ov i ng party. T o survi ve sum m ary j ud gm ent, the no n-m ov i ng party m ust pr oduce s peci f

i c f act s s how i ng thatther e i s a genui ne m at er i al i s s ue f ortr i al
. ” W

il bourn v. S tenn ett , W il kinson & W

ard , 6 8 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 2 1 3 -1 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); see al so M . R. C. P. 5 6 (e ). T h e re fo re , “[t]o a v o id su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, th e n o n -m o v a n t m u st s e t fo rth sp e c ific fac ts th a t d e m o n str ate a g en u ine issu e o f a m aterial fac t th at m erit s tr ial instead o f m ere
uns ubs t ant i at ed al l egat i ons . ” G r een v. A l le nda le Plant

ing Co. , 95 4 S o. 2d 10 32 , 10 38 (M i ss. 2007) ( ci t i ng R i chm ond v. B enchm ark Const r. Cor p. , 6 9 2 S o . 2 d 6 0 , 6 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). “The par ty opposi ng t he m ot i on m us tbe di l i gent . ” Ri c hm ond , 692 So. 2d at61- 62 ( ci t i ng G risha m v. Joh n Q . L on g V . F . W . P ost , 5 1 9 S o . 2 d 4 1 3 , 4 1 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 )). H o w ev er, “[ s ] um m ary j udgm enti s m andat ed w her e the r es pondenthas f ai l ed ‘ t o m ake a s how i ng
s uf f i ci entt o es t abl i s h the exi s t ence of a n el ementes s ent i al t o thatparty' s cas e, and on w hi ch thatparty w i l l bearthe bur den of pr oof a ttr i al
. ’ ” D earm an v. Chri s tian , 967 So. 2d 636, 639 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted).

### 5

¶8. T he nonm ovi ng pa r ty “ r emai ns s i l enta the rper i l
. ” Fr u c h te rv. L y n c h O il Co ., 522 So. 2d 195, 198- 99 ( M i s s . 1988)
. “[ A ] n a dver s e party may notr es tupon the mer e al l egat i ons
o r d e n ials o f h is p lea d in g s, b u t h is re sp o n se , b y a ffid a v its o r a s o th e rw ise p ro v id e d in th is
rul e, m us ts etf

or th s peci f

i c f act s s how i ng thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue f ortr i al
. I f

he does
no ts o r e s po nd , s umm a r y j ud gmen t , i f ap pr op r i a t e , s ha l l be en t e r e d a ga i ns thi m. ” M . R. C. P. 5 6 (e ); see al

so B r ow n v. Cr edit

Center , I nc. , 4 4 4 S o . 2 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 2 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 ). L A W A N D A N A L Y S IS I . Th e a p p l i c a b l e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e M TC A ¶9. T he M T C A pr ovi des i m m uni ty t o governm ent ent i t i es , s uch as publ i c hos pi t al s , and to g o v e rn m e n t e m p lo y e e s u n d e r s p e c if ie d c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See M iss. C o d e A n n . § § 1 1 -46 -1 t o 11- 46- 23 ( R ev. 2 00 2). T he M T C A pr ovi des the exc l us i ve r emedy f orm oney damages ag ains t a go v ern m en tal en ti ty o r it s e m p loy ee . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -7(1 ) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). H ow ever , a part y m ay j oi n an empl oyee, i n hi s orherr epr es ent at i ve capaci ty, i n an ac t i on agai ns ta g ov e r nmen t a l e nt i ty “ i f the a c to ro mi s s i on c ompl a i ne d of i s o ne f orwhi c h t he governm ent al ent i ty m ay be l i abl e. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 7( 2) ( R ev. 2002)
. B utan
em ployee can no tbe personall y l i able forany act s or om i ssi on that occurr ed w i thin the co urse
an d sco p e o f his o r he r du ti es. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -7(2 ). ¶10. Publ i c hos pi t al s are cov ered by the M T C A
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 1( j ) ( R ev. 20 02 ). A party clai m i ng i njury u nd er the M T C A aga inst a g o v ernm ental enti ty, such as a publ i c hos pi t al , m us tf i l e a not i ce of

cl ai m w i th the chi ef exec uti ve off

i cerof t he governm ent al ent i ty ni nety days pr i ort o m ai nt ai ni ng an ac t i on. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 11( 1) ( R ev. 2002)
. T he M T C A al s o pr ovi des a one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons on a l l act i ons

### In he r brie f, Ranc e a dmi ts that Dr. Gort on was an em

ploye e of Greenwood Lef lore 1 

### Ho spi ta l. She s tate s that “[ u] nbeknowns t t o Ranc e, Dr. Gort on was em ploye d by Gre enwood- Lef

lore Hos pit al(‘ Gre enwood Le fl oreHospit al ’) and wor ked at HCMH unde r the au spices o f a contract betw een H CM H an d G reenw oo d L eflore H osp ital.” 6 br oughtunderi t s pr ovi s i ons w hi ch i s t ol l ed by a t i m el y-f i l ed no t i ce of

cl ai m . M i s s . C ode A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (3 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). I I . W het her t here was a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at eri al f

act t hat D r. G ort on w as an em pl oyee of

a pub l i c hospi t al e nt i t l ed t o t he prot ect i ons of t h e M TC A. ¶11. I t i s undi s put ed t hat G r eenw oo d L ef l or e H os pi t al i s a publ i c hospi t al ent i t l ed t o t he pr ot ect i ons of

the M T C A
. T her ef

or e, i t s em pl oyees al s o have the expl i ci text ens i on of t he M T C A ’ s pr ot ect i on. M i s s . C ode A nn . § 1 1- 46- 7 ( R ev. 2002)
. D r . G or t on ar gues thatt he document at i on bef

or e the tr i al courtes t abl i s hed hi s s t atus as an empl oyee of G r eenw ood L e fl o re H o s p ita l a n d it w a s n o t a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te ri a l f a c t. ¶12. W e agr ee thatther e w as no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

actthatD r . G or t on w as an
e m p lo y e e o f G re e n w o o d L e flo re H o sp ital o n A u g u st 7 -8 , 2 0 0 7 , th e d a te s re lev a n t to th is ap p ea l. T o su p p o rtD r. G o rt o n ’s asse rt ion that h e w as e m p loy ed b y G ree n w o o d L eflore

1 H ospit al atal l r el evantt i m es , he pr ovi ded: ( 1) an af f i davi tf r om M ar gar etB uchana n, t he D i r ect orof H um an R es our ces atG r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al ; ( 2) hi s ow n af f i davi ts t at i ng thathi s dat es of

em pl oym entw er e Sept ember29, 1999, thr ough O ct ober31, 2007; ( 3) a copy of hi s or i gi nal empl oym entcontr act , ef f ect i ve Sept ember29, 1999; ( 4) a copy of an amendm entt o the empl oym entcontr actthatext ended hi s em ploym entcontr actf r om Sept embe r 1, 2 00 4, t hr ough A ugus t31, 2009; ( 5) a copy of a mut ual t erm i nat i on of the empl oym entagr eementpr ovi di ng thatD r . G or t on’ s e m pl oym entw oul d t erm i nat e A ugus t1,

### The di sc repanc y in t he start d ates of

Dr. Gort on’s em

ploym ent provi ded by 2 

### Buchanan and Dr. Gort on is immate ri alto t he d iscussio n, be ca

useboth a gre e that

he wa s emplo yedbyGreenwo odLeflo re Ho spit al o n Aug ust 7 -8, 2 00 7, th e dates relev ant to Ranc e’ s c laim s. The Septe mbe r 29, 1999, c ontrac t statedthat Dr . Gor ton’ s e mpl oyme nt wo uldbe fo r a perio d o f five years from the date Dr. Go rtonmo vedto Belzo ni, M ississipp i, and c omme nce d his pra ctic e of me dic ineas a f

ull -tim e e mpl oyeeof Gr ee nwood Lef lore Ho s pi t a land

m e mbe r o f thea c t i vem e di c a ls t a f f o f H CM H. I t

i s e vi de nt

f romthe am endm ent

to thee mpl oyme nt agr ee me nt that thi s fi ve- year period began on Septe mbe r 1, 2004. 7 2 0 0 7 ; (6 ) a c o p y o f a n a m e n d m e n t t o th e m u tu a l term in a tio n -o f-e m p lo y m e n t ag re e m e n t, p rov iding that D r. G o rt o n ’s em p loy m en t w o u ld term inate o n N o v em b er 1 , 2 0 0 7 ; and (7) a copy of a r eportof

t erm i nat i on pr ovi di ng thatD r . G or t on’ s l as tday of empl oym ent w as O ct ober31, 2007. ¶ 1 3
. In h e r a ffid a v it, B u c h a n a n sta ted th a t G re e n w o o d L e fl o re H o s p ita l is a c o m m u n ity h o sp it al ow n ed b y the C ity o f G ree n w o o d an d L eflore C o u n ty. B u ch an an stated tha t D r. G or t on w as an empl oyee of G reenw oo d L ef

l or e H os pi t al dur i ng the t i m e of the eve nt s s et f or th i n R ance ’ s com pl ai nt . B uchana n re l at ed t hat , w hi l e i n m edi cal s chool , D r . G or t on had ent er ed i nt o an empl oym entcontr actw i th G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al dat ed Sept ember29, 1999, and, pu r s ua ntt o tha tc on tr a c t , G r e e nwood Le f l or e H os pi t al cont i nuous l y had empl oyed D r. G o rto n fro m S e p tem b e r 1 , 2 0 0 4 , thr o u g h O c to b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 . B u c h a n a n s ta te d th a t,
a c c o rd in g to th e c o n d iti o n s o f D r. G o rto n ’s e m p lo y m e n t w ith G re e n w o o d L e flo re H o sp ital, h e p ra c tic e d in th e G o rt o n C lin ic a n d s a w p a tie n ts a t H C M H . ¶14. I n D r. G ort on ’s aff i dav i t , h e st at ed thathe had be en empl oyed cont i nuous l y by G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al fr om S ept ember29, 1999, t o O ct ober31, 2007. D r . G or t on 2
s t at ed thatt he par t i es i ni t i al l y had agr eed t o t erm i nat e hi s empl oym entef f ect i ve A ugus t1,

### 8

2007, butthatbef

or e A ugus t1, 2007, the part i es had agr eed t o ext end the empl oym ent contr actt o N ovember1, 2007. T he reas on f orthe del ay w as t o “al l ow compl et i on of d o cu m en ts t o effec t a ch an g e o f ow n ers h ip o f th e G o rt o n C li n ic from G ree n w o o d L eflore H os pi t al t o D r . M ac G or t on and D r . Si dney C ar l t on G or t on. ” ¶15. T he empl oym entagr eement bet w een G ree nw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al and D r . G or t on pr ovi ded thati tw as f

ora f i ve- yeart erm f

r om the dat e D r . G or t on comm ence d hi s pr act i ce
o f m ed ici n e u n d er the co n d it ion s sp ec if ied. T h e c o n tr ac t pro v ided that D r. G o rt o n ’s
r es pons i bi l i t i es as a f

ul l
- t i m e em pl oyee of

G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al r equi r ed hi m t o s erve
a s th e p h y sic ian fo r th e G o rto n C lin ic a n d to b e c o m e a m e m b e r o f H C M H ’s a c tiv e sta ff to p rov ide o v ersigh t and ca re o f th e c li n ic’s an d H C M H ’s p ati en ts. L ater, G ree n w o o d L eflore H o sp ital a n d D r. G o rto n e x e c u te d a n a m e n d m e n t to th e e m p lo y m e n t ag re e m e n t. T h is documentes t abl i s hed t hatD r . G or t on’ s em pl oym entdat es w er e Sept ember1, 2004, thr ough A u g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 0 9
. ¶16. O n A pri l 16 , 2007, G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al and D r . G or t on exec ut ed a m utual t er m i nati on of

the empl oym entagr eement . T he t erm i nat i on agr eements etthe dat e of t erm i nat i on as A ugus t1, 2007. H ow ever , the part i es al s o exec ut ed an am endmentt o the term ination o f em p loy m en t ag ree m en t da ted “A u g u st __

_ 2 0 0 7 , ” that ex tend ed D r. G o rt o n ’s dat e of t erm i nat i on t o N ovember1, 2007. D r. G ort on and a r epr es ent at i ve of G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al s i gned thi s amendm ent . A copy of a r eportof

t erm i nat i on f

orD r . G or t on not ed t he f

ol l owi ng d a t e s : ( 1) a h i r e d a t e o f Augus t3 1, 2 00 4, ( 2) a l a s td a t e wor ke d of O ct ober31, 2007, and ( 3) a dat e of t erm i nat i on of

O ct ober31, 2007. T he r eportal s o s t at ed thatthe det ai l s of

t erm i nat i on w er e “c hange ow ner s hi p. ”

### 9

¶17. R ance of

f er ed no evi dence t o r ef

ut e D r . G or t on’ s as s ert i on that , on the r el evantdat es of A ugus t7-8, 2007, he w as an em pl oyee of G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al and subj ectt o the pr ot ect i ons of

the M T C A
. B ef

or e the tr i al court , R ance t ook i s s ue w i th the f actthatt he ext ens i on of

the t erm i nat i on agr eementdi d nots peci f y the date i n A ugus t2007 thati tw as
exec ut ed, and w i th t he exe cut i on da t e of the amendm entt o the empl oym entagr eement . She
c laim e d th a t, w h ile G re e n w o o d L e flo re H o sp ital’s rep re se n tativ e sig n e d th e a m e n d m e n t to the em ploym ent agr eem ent on A ug ust26 , 20 05 , D r. G ort on ’s si gn ature w as dat ed A ug ust 24, 2009, a f

utur e dat e thathad notoccurr ed. I n r es pons e t o t hi s al l egat i on, D r . G or t on s t at ed i n hi s af f i davi tthat t he dat e on the amendm ent“r eads ‘ A ugus t24, 2005, ’ notA ugus t24, 2009. ” ¶18. W e fi nd thatthe do cum ents sub m i t t ed by D r. G ort on est abli shed thathe w as empl oyed by G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al on the r el evantda t es of A ugus t7- 8, 2007. R ance p ro v id e d n o sp e c ific f

a c ts th a t d e m o n stra te a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t th a t m e rits tria l. In s te a d , R a n c e p ro v id e d m e re u n s u b s ta n tia te d a lle g a tio n s . See G r een , 954 So. 2d at1038. T her ef or e, the evi dence bef

or e the tr i al c our tf

ai l ed t o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

act
a s to D r. G o rto n ’s s tatu s a s a n e m p lo y e e o f G re e n w o o d L e flo re H o sp ital, a g o v e rn m e n t en tity
cover ed by the M T C A
. W e obs erve thatR ance had a l egal duty t o conducta due- di l i gence in q u ir y in to th e tru e e m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s o f p o te n tia l d e fe n d a n ts . R a y v. K e ith , 859 So. 2d 9 9 5 , 9 9 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). I I I . W het her R ance provi ded proper not i ce t o G ree nw ood L ef l ore Ho s p i t a l u n d e r t h e M TC A.

### 10

¶19. H avi ng de t erm i ned no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al f

acte xi s t s a s t o the appl i cabi l i ty of th e M T C A , w e tu rn to D r. G o rto n ’s a rg u m e n t th a t R a n c e fa iled to p ro v id e p re -su it n o tice to G re e n w o o d L e fl o re H o s p ita l’ s c h ie f o p e ra tin g o ff ic e r p u rs u a n t to th e M T C A
. See M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (3 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶ 2 0
. M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 sta tes th e n o tice re q u ire m e n ts fo r filing a law su it
u n d e r th e M T C A . A c c o rd in g to S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ): A f t era l l pr ocedur es w i thi n a gove rnm ent al e nt i ty ha ve been exhaust ed, any pe r s on ha vi ng a c l a i m f ori nj ury a r i s i ng un de rthe pr ov i s i on s of thi s c ha pt er agai ns ta governm ent al ent i ty ori t s em pl oyee s hal l proc eed a s he mi ghti n any a c tio n at law o r in eq u ity ; pr o v id e d , h o w e v e r, t h a t n in e ty (9 0 ) da y s p rio r to m ai ntai ni ng an act i on ther eon, s uch pers on s hal lf i l e a not i ce of

c lai m w i th the c h ie f ex e c u tiv e o

ffic e ro f th e g o v e r n m e n ta l e n tity
. S e rv ice o f n o tice o f c laim m ay als o b e had i n the f oll ow i ng m ann er: If

the g ov ernm en tal e n ti ty is a county, then upon the chanc ery c l erk of the county s ued; i f

the governm ent al e n tity is a m u n icip a lity , th e n u p o n the city cle rk
. If th e g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity to be s ued i s a s t at e ent i ty as def i ned i n Sect i on 11- 46- 1( j ) , s ervi ce of

no t i ce of cl ai m s hal l be had onl y upon t hatent i ty' s chi ef exec ut i ve of

f i cer . I f the g o v ern m en tal en ti ty is pa rt ici p ati n g in a p lan a d m inist ere d b y the b o ard pur s uantt o Sect i on 11- 46- 7( 3) , s uch chi ef exec ut i ve of

f i cers hal l not i f

y the b o ard o f an y claim s fi led w ith in fi v e (5 ) da y s after th e re ce ipt th ere o f. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶2 1
. T h is C o u rtstri ctl y a p p li es the n inety -da y -no ti ce req u ir em en t of S ec ti o n 1 1 -46 -11 (1). U ni v. of Mis s . Me d. Ctr. v. Eas te r ling , 928 So. 2d 815, 820 ( M i s s . 2006). “[ T ] he ni nety- day not i ce r equi re m entunders ect i on 11- 46- 11( 1) i s a ‘ har d- edged, m andat ory rul e w hi ch the C our ts tr i ct l y enf

or ces . ’ ” Id
. ( quot i ng I

v y v. GM AC , 6 1 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 )). See a l so P rice v. Clark , 2 1 S o . 3 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 8 -1 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ S trict c o m p lian c e w ith
s t atut ory not i ce i s r equi r ed, r egar dl es s of w hy the pl a i nt i f

f f ai l ed t o pr ovi de not i ce. ”) ( quot i ng Eas te r ling , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d a t 8 1 9 -2 0 ); B r o w n v. S w . Mis s . R e g ’l Me d . Ctr., 989 So. 2d 933, 936

### 11

(M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) (s tatin g th a t “Eas te r ling ’s s trict c o m p lian c e sta n d a rd is m e a n t to a p p ly equal l y t o c a s e s i n w hi c h no n ot i c e i s f i l e d, n ot i c e i s f

i l e d a f t e rthe c ompl a i nt , ort he
c o m p la in t is fi le d s o o n e r t h a n n in e ty d a y s a ft e r f ilin g n o tic e ” ). ¶ 2 2
. R a n c e p ro v id e d p re -su it n o tice to H C M H . W h e n R a n c e filed th e su it, sh e se p a ra tely
s erved H M C H , D r . T hom as , and D r . G or t on. B utbeca us e D r . G or t on w as empl oyed by G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al , a cove r ed ent i ty, he w as per s onal l y i m m une f r om s ui t , and
cou l d h ave b een j oined i n a sui tagai nsthi s em ployer i n a represent at i ve cap aci ty o nly. M i ss. C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 7( 2) ( R ev. 2002)
. B eca us e R ance di d nots erve not i ce on t he ch i ef
exec ut i ve of

f i cerof G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al ni nety da ys pr i ort o f i l i ng s ui t , R ance f

ai l ed to fo llo w th e p re -s u it n o tic e re q u ir e m e n ts o f t h e M T C A
. ¶23. R ance att empt s t o ci r cumventt hi s out come by ar gui ng t hathernot i ce t o H C M H w as
co n stru cti v e n o ti ce to G ree n w o o d L eflore H o sp it al. R an ce a rgu es that G ree n w o o d L eflore H os pi t al ’ s empl oyees w or ked atH C M H purs uantt o a contr actual r el at i ons hi p betw een the tw o hos pi t al s . R ance cont ends that , gi ven the hos pi t al s ’ c ontr actual r el at i ons hi p and the f act thats he coul d nothave kn ow n of D r . G or t on’ s actual empl oym ents t atus , hernot i ce t o t he ch ief ex ec u ti v e o ffi ce r of H C M H sh o u ld h av e b ee n ad eq u ate n o ti ce to G ree n w o o d L eflore H os pi t al
. T he r ecor d s how s no evi dence of a c ontr actbetw een the tw o hos pi t al s . A l though R ance ’ s cont ent i on thatther e w as a contr actbetw een t he hospi t al s i s uns uppor t ed by the
r ecor d, obvi at i ng the nee d f oranal ys i s of

herar gum ent, w e fi nd i tappr opr i at e t o not e that th is C o u rt s tr ic tly e n fo rc e s th e M T C A ’s n in e ty -d a y n o tic e re q u ir e m e n t. V I . W he t he r t he s t at ut e of l i m i t at i ons has e xpi r e d.

### 12

¶24. D r . G or t on al s o aver s thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had expi r ed bef or e R ance f

i l ed the compl ai nt . T he M T C A pr es cr i bes a one- yearst atut e of l i m i t at i on. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11-46- 11 (3) (R ev. 20 02 ). S pecif i cal l y, the st atute pr ov i des: A l l act i ons br oughtunderthe pr ovi s i ons of thi s chapt ers hal l be comm ence d w i thin one (1) year next af t er the d at e of the torti o u s, w rongful or ot herw i se act i onabl e conduc ton w hi ch t he l i abi l i ty phase of the act i on i s bas ed, and not af t e r ; p r ov i de d, h oweve r , tha tthe f i l i ng o f a n ot i c e o f

c l a i m as r e qu i r ed by su b sec ti o n (1) of th is sec ti o n sha ll serv e to t o ll the s tatu te of li m it ati o n s for a per i od of ni nety- f i ve ( 95) days f

r om t he dat e t he chi ef

exec ut i ve of

f i cerof the s t at e agenc y r ece i ves the not i ce of cl ai m , orf

orone hundr ed tw enty ( 120) days f r om t he dat e the chi ef

exec ut i ve of

f i ceror others t atut or i l y des i gnat ed of f i ci al of a muni ci pal i ty, county orotherpol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on r ece i ves the not i ce of cl ai m , du ri ng w hich t i m e n o act i on m ay be m ai ntai ned by the clai m ant unl ess the cl ai m anthas r ece i ved a not i ce of de ni al of

c l ai m . A f

t erthe t ol l i ng per i od h a s e x p ire d , the c laim a n t sh a ll th e n h a v e a n ad d iti o n a l nin e ty (9 0 ) d a y s to file a ny a c t i on a ga i ns tthe go ve r nmen t a l e nt i ty s e r ve d wi th p r op e rc l a i m not i ce. H ow ever , s houl d the governm ent al ent i ty deny any s uch cl ai m , then the a d d iti o n a l n in e ty (9 0 ) d a y s d u rin g w h ich the cla im a n t m a y fil e an a c tio n sh a ll begi n t o run upon t he cl ai m ant ' s re cei ptof not i ce of deni al of

cl ai m f r om the g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tity
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -11 (3). ¶25. A ccordi ng to the al l egat i ons of the compl ai nt , the t or t i ous , w r ongf ul , or otherw i se act i onabl e conduc tthatcaus ed J or dan’ s death occurr ed on A ugus t7- 8, 2007. R ance f i l ed
s ui ton N ovember5, 2008, more than one ye arl at er . A l though the s t atut e pr ovi des f ort ol l i ng d u ri n g the n o ti ce p eriod , b ec au se R an ce p rov ided n o n o tice to D r. G o rt o n ’s em p loy er, G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al , the t ol l i ng provi s i on i s i nappl i cabl e i n thi s cas e. T her ef or e, Ra n c e ’ s c l a i m w a s b a r r e d b y th e a p p l i c a b l e s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s u n d e rth e M T CA
. V . W he t he r t he r e was c ons t r uc t i ve no t i c e a nd whet he r t he bor r oweds ervant doct ri ne appl i es .

### 13

¶26. R ance ar gues thatD r . G or t on w as the bor r ow ed se r vantof H C M H , and t hus her not i ce to H C M H w a s s u ffic ien t. T h e b o rro w e d -s e rv a n t d o c trin e is a c o m m o n -la w ru le “ th a t a
s ervant , i n gener al empl oym entof one per s on, w ho i s t empora r i l y l oaned t o a notherper s on t o do the l att er ’ s w or k, becomes , f orthe t i m e bei ng, t he se r vantof the borr ow er , al though he
r emai ns i n the gener al em pl oym entof the l ender
. ” 

### Jonesv. JamesRee ves Cont ractor s, Inc . , 701 So. 2d 774, 778 ( Mis s. 1997) ( quoting Qu ick Ch ange Oil an d L ub e v. Ro gers , 663 So. 2d 585, 589 ( Mis s. 1995)) . Whe retherul e a ppli es , “ [t ] he bor

rowe r t hen be com es the
em ploye r t o theexc lus ion of thele nder .” Id. This Court has iden tifie d threecrit eria for det er mining whe the r one is a bo rrowe d se rva nt: “( 1) whos e wor

k is being per for

me d, ( 2) who control s or

has the right

to c ontrol t

he wor kman as to t

he wor k being per for

me d, and (3) h as the w orkman v oluntarilyacceptedthe sp ecial emplo yment.” Id. at 778-79. ¶27. Ran ce argu es that Dr. Gort on was the borrowed se rvant of HCMH bec aus e, at the time of theal le ged ne gli genc e, he wa s wor king at HCMH pur suant t o his em ploym ent contra ct with Gree nwood Lefl oreHospit al , whic h provide d that Dr. Gort on would beon the
ac tive m edi ca l s ta ff

of HCMH. Dr. Gort on argues that t he bor rowe d-s er

vant doctrine ha s not be en r ec ogniz ed a s an appl ic abl e theor y under theMTCA, and that , e ven i f the bo rrow ed-serv ant d octrin e were ap plicab le to anMT CAclaim, its elements were n ot met in this case. ¶28. T hi s C our t never has cons i der ed t he borr ow ed- s ervant doctr i ne i n the cont ext of an M T C A c laim . A ss u m in g fo r th e sa k e o f a rg u m e n t th a t th e b o rro w e d -se rv a n t d o c trin e c o u ld be appl i ed t o an M T C A cl ai m , i ti s pl ai nl y i nappl i cabl e t o the f act s pr es ent ed by thi s cas e. T h e o n ly e v iden ce o f th e re lat ion sh ip b etw ee n D r. G o rt o n an d H C M H w as D r. G o rt o n ’s

### 14

empl oym entcontr actw i th G r eenw ood L ef l or e H os pi t al , r equi r i ng hi m t o be on the ac t i ve
m edi cal s t af

f of H C M H . N o evi dence of any contr actbetw een D r . G or t on an d H C M H or b e tw e e n H C M H a n d G re e n w o o d L e flo re H o sp ital a ffe c tin g D r. G o rto n ’s e m p lo y m e n t i s in the r ecor d. “G ener al l y, st af f pri vi l eges per m i ta doct ort o us e hos pi t al f aci l i t i es t o pr act i ce hi s m edi cal pr of

es s i on. ” S ta te B

y a n d T h r o u g h Mis s . E th i c s Co mm’n v. A s e me , 5 83 So. 2d 955, 958 ( M i s s . 1991) ( quot i ng E ngel s tad v. V ir gini a Mun. Hos

p. , 718 F. 2d 262, 267 ( 8th C i r . 1983) )
. T hi s C our thas he l d thata phys i ci an’ s appoi nt m entt o the medi cal s t af f of a hos pi t al and the gr antof cl i ni cal p ri vil eges do notequat e t o an empl oym entcontr act b e tw e e n th e p h y s ic ia n a n d th e h o s p ita l. S u lliv a n v. B a p tist-Me m ’l Ho sp .-G o lde n T ria n g le , I nc. , 7 22 S o. 2d 675 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng A s e me , 5 8 3 S o . 2 d a t 9 5 8 -6 0 ; T r app v. Cays on , 471 S o. 2d 375, 384 ( M i s s . 1985))
. N otw i ths t andi ng the ques t i on of w hetherthe borr ow eds ervantdoctr i ne coul d appl y t o an M T C A cl ai m , i ti s cl eart hatD r . G or t on’ s pos i t i on on the
m ed ical st aff

of H C M H did not i m pli cat e the b orr ow ed-servan tdo ctri ne. T here fore , su m m ary j udgm entw as w arr ant ed as t o D r . G or t on. CO NC L US I ON ¶29. W e f

i nd thatther e w as no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fa ctt hatD r . G or t on w as empl oyed by G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al , a pol i t i cal subdi vi s i on of the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi cover ed b y th e M T CA
. Ra n c e d i d n o tc o mp l y wi th t h e p r e - s u i t - n o t i c e r e q u i r e me n t s o f th e M T CA , and hercl ai m agai ns tD r . G or t on w as ba rr ed by M T C A ’ s one - years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he borr ow ed- s ervantdoctr i ne i s i nappl i cabl e t o R ance ’ s c l ai m agai ns tD r . G or t on. T her ef or e,
w e r ever s e the deni al of s um m ary j udgm entby the C i r cui tC our tof H um phr eys C ounty, and
w e re n d e r j u d g m e n t in fa v o r o f D r. G o rt o n .

### 15

¶ 3 0
. REVERSED AND REND ERED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR AND PI ERCE, J J . , CO NCU R. KI TCHEN S , J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y G R A V E S, P . J. KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶31. T he m aj or i ty has concl uded that the borr ow ed s ervant doctr i ne i s i nappl i cabl e t o t he fa c ts o f th is c a se . I re sp e c tfu lly d isa g re e a n d d iss e n t. ¶32. I n D e nton v. Y

az oo & Mis s is s i

pp iValle y Railr oa d Com

pa ny , 284 U . S. 305, 308, 52 S. C t . 141, 76 L
. E d. 310 ( 1932) , the Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es s ai d t hatw hether a pri ncipal m ay b e held l i able f or the acts of i t s servan t s depends notupon the f

actthathe w as thei rs ervantgener al l y, butupon w hether th e w o rk w h ich h e w a s d o in g a t th e tim e w a s th e ir w o rk o r th a t o f a n o th e r; a q u e stio n d e ter m in e d , u su a lly a t lea s t, b y a sc e rta in in g u n d e r w h o se a u th o rity and comm and the w or k w as bei ng done. W hen one per s on put s hi s s ervantat the d ispo sal an d u n d er the co n tr o l of an o ther fo r th e p erfo rm an ce o f a part i cul ars ervi ce f

orthe lat t er , the s ervant , i n r es pectof hi s act s i n that s e rv ic e , is to b e d e a lt w ith a s th e s e rv a n t o f t h e la tte r a n d n o t o f t h e fo rm e r. I d. at308. Fur ther , i n Q u i ck Ch an ge O il an d L u be, I

n c. v. R og ers , 66 3 S o. 2d 58 5 (M i ss. 1 9 9 5 ), th is C o u rt h e ld th a t: T he gene r al rul e, as appl i ed atcomm on l aw , i s thata s ervant , i n gener al empl oym entof

one per s on, w ho i s t empora r i l y l oaned t o anotherper s on t o do the latt er’s w o rk, be co m es, for the ti m e b eing , the s erv an t t o the b o rrow er, al though he r emai ns i n t he gene r al empl oym entof the l ender
. T he borr ow er then becomes the em pl oyert o t he excl us i on of the l ender
. A ppl i cat i on of

the r ul e depe nds upon the ques t i on of w hos e w ork is bei ng per f or m ed, and i

f the l enderis t o es cape l i abi l i t y, i tm ustappearthatthe s er vant is underthe b o r r o w e r ’s ex c lu s iv e c o n tr o l a n d d ir e c tio n a s to th e w o rk in p r o g r e s s . W hen an empl oyee vol unt ar i l y accept s and ent er s upon s uch an a s s i gnm ent , he cea s es t o be i n the cou rs e of the empl oym entby the l enderorthe gene r al e m p lo y e r. H o w e v e r, w h ile th e “ lo a n e d se rv a n t” d o c trin e is g e n e ra lly cons i der ed appl i cabl e i n the compens at i on f i el d, a s hi f

tof em phas i s w i l l be n o ted as to th e thr e e p e rtin e n t q u e stio n s in v o lv e d , v iz: ( 1) w hos e w ork is bei ng

### At the ti meof theeve nts in Banks , Dr. A llen w as a Cap tain inthe A ir Fo rce in h is 3 

### se cond ye ar

of a re si denc y training program of theAir Forc e and UMMC, and was as si gned to a tw o-mo nthrotatio n inth e U MM C Hig h RiskO bstetrics Clin ic. Banks , 623 F. Supp. 2d at 7 53
. Furthe r, the“parame te rs of the tra ining program wer e s et

forth by a

2003 Mem orandum of

Under st anding (MOU) ente re d betwee n UMMC and the Ke es le r Me dic al Cent er , Ke es le r Air ForceBas e. ” Id. 16 per f or m ed, ( 2) w ho contr ol

s or has the ri

ght t o contr olthe w orkm an as t o the w ork bei ng per

f or m ed, a nd (

3) has the w orkm an vol untar i l y acc ept ed the sp e c ia l emp lo

y m e n t. I d. a t 5 8 9 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) (c it in g D u n n , Mis s is s i p p iW o rke rs ’Co mp e n s a t i o n L a w § 1 8 6 (19 8 6 )). ¶33. T hi s C our thas neverdeci ded speci fi cal l y w hetherthe bo rr ow ed s ervant doctr i ne appl i es t o c as es br oughtunde rthe M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct ; how ever , the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tf

orthe Southern D i s tr i ctof M i s s i s s i ppi has cons i der ed the appl i cat i on of the d o c tr in e to th e F e d e ra l T o rt C la im s A c t. See B anks v. U nited States , 623 F. Supp. 2d 751 (S .D . M is s . 2 0 0 9 ). ¶34. I n B anks , Y ol anda B anks , a pat i ent of the U ni ver s i ty of M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent er H i gh R i s k O bs t etr i cs C l i ni c, di ed of a post - oper at i ve i ntr a- abdomi nal absc es s as a r es ul tof D r. A n d re w T . A lle n ’s a lle g e d n e g lig e n c e . I d. at752. A tthe t i m e of tr eatm ent , D r . A l l en
w as a C aptai n in the U nit ed S t at es A i r Force, thu s an em ployee o f the U nit ed S t at es. I d. 3 T he pl ai nt i f

f br oughtherm edi cal m al pr act i ce a ct i on agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es u nd erthe F e d e ra l T o rt C la im s A c t. I d. T he G overnm entm oved f ors um m ary j udgm ent , “cont endi ng t hati t[ c ou l d] no tbe he l d v i c a r i ou s l y l i a bl e f orD r . A l l e n’ s a l l e ge d n e gl i ge nc e s i nc e a tt he t i m e of hi s a ct i ons i n di agnos i ng a nd tr eat i ng M s . Banks, D r . A l l en w as the borr ow ed s ervant of U M M C
. ” I

d. A ppl yi ng M i s s i s s i ppi l aw , the f eder al di s tr i ctj udge f

ound D r . A l l en t o have

### 17

been the borr ow ed s ervantof U M M C and gra nt ed summ ary j udgm enti n fa vorof the U ni t ed S ta te s . I d . a t 7 5 3 , 7 5 6
. ¶35. T hough n ot contr oll i ng h ere, the f eder al court ’ s anal ys i s i n B anks i s on poi nt and per s uas i ve. T hatcourtacknow l edged that“M i s s i s s i ppi l aw r ecogni zes the def ens e of t he

‘ bor r owed s e r va nt ’ w he r e a pe r s on w ho i s un de rthe e mpl oy mentof on e e mpl oy e rmay be t empora r i l y l oaned t o anotherempl oyer , i n w hi ch ci r cumst ance ‘the borr ow er. . . becomes the empl oyert o the exc l us i on of the l ender
. ’ ” I

d. at752- 53 ( quot i ng Q ui ck Change , 663 S o. 2d a t592)
. T he B anks cour thel d t hat“[ t ] he r ecor d evi dence i n thi s cas e es t abl i s hes beyond
re a so n a b le c h a llen g e th a t D r. A llen w a s U M M C ’s b o rro w e d s e rv a n t in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is
r es i dency a tU M M C , and hi s d i agn osi s and tr eatm entof Y ol anda Banks dur i ng t hat
r es i dency. ” Ban ks , 6 23 F
. Supp. 2d at753. I n thatcas e, the r ecor d i ncl uded the M emora ndu m of U nder s t andi ng betw een U M M C and K ees l erM edi cal C ent erdel i neat i ng th e d u tie s o f D r. A lle n a n d th e o b lig a tio n s o f U M M C
. I d . a t7 54
. Spe c i f

i c a l l y, t he ag ree m en t p rov ided th at D r. A ll en w as e x p ec ted, am o n g o ther thin g s, to p rov ide p ati en t care i n acc or dance w i th “al l hos pi t al , s t at e, and f eder al rul es and r egul at i ons r egar di ng pat i ent
car e and
. . . s eek advi ce i n que s t i onabl e ci r cumst ance s . ’ ” I d. A ddi t i onal l y, the agr eement
m andat ed thatU M M C w oul d “make avai l abl e the cl i nical and r el at ed f aci l i t i es neede d f

or tr ai ni ng . . . . ” I

d. ¶3 6. I n t hi s cas e, t he phys i ci an em pl oym entagr eementbet w een D r . G or t on and G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al pr ovi ded i n rel evantpart , that“thr oughoutthe t erm of empl oym entpur s uantt o thi s A gr eement , [D r. G or t on] s hal l m ai nt ai n pr i vi l eges and
m ember s hi p on the act i ve m edi cal s t af f of the H um phr eys Count y M emori al H ospit al and

### 18

the court es y m edi cal s t af f of the G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H ospit al
. . . . ” A ddi t i onal l y, t he agr eementre qui r ed t hatD r . G or t on “sha l l be re s pons i bl e f orpr ovi di ng appr opr i at e ca r e and tr eatm entf

orpat i ent s atG or t on C l i ni c, H um phr eys C ounty M emori al H os pi t al , and the
nur s i ng hom e on an a s - neede d ba s i s a nd w hen r eques t ed by [ G r eenw ood Lef l or e] H os pi t al

. . . . ” Fu rther, S ched ul e A of the agr eementr equi r ed D r . G or t on t o be r es pons i bl e f ort he

“ o v e rsig h t an d c a re o f c lin ic a n d H u m p h re y s C o u n ty M e m o ria l H o sp ital p a tien ts in
a c c o rd a n c e w ith H o s p ita l/m e d ic a l s ta ff p o lic ie s a n d a c c e p te d p ro fe s s io n a l s ta n d a rd s .” E s t abl i s hed l aw and the f act s be f or e us l ead l ogi cal l y t o the concl us i on thatD r . G or t on w as the borr ow ed s ervantof H um phr eys C ounty M emori al H os pi t al ( H C M H ) at al l r el evant tim e s . B anks , 623 F. Supp. 2d at753. ¶37. M or eover , und er con trol l i ng M i ssi ssi pp i cas e l aw , D r . G or t on w as the borr ow ed
s ervantof H C M H i n accor dance w i th the Q ui ck Change th re e -p a rt te s t. See Q ui ck Change , 6 6 3 S o . 2 d a t 5 8 9
. A tthe t i m e of the J or dan chil d’s death, D r . G or t on w as r equi r ed, pur s uantt o hi s empl oym entagr eementw i th G L H , t o do the w or k of H C M H . I tcan be deduce d f

r om t he l anguage of D r . G or t on’ s empl oym entagr eementthatH C M H had the r i ght t o contr ol D r . G or t on’ s w or k per f or m ed atH C M H . Speci f i cal l y, D r . G or t on w as r equi r ed t o pr ovi de ca r e atH C M H “i n acc or dance w i th H os pi t al / m edi cal st af f pol i ci es and ac cept ed pr of es s i onal s t andar ds
. ” Such i s a r eas onabl e i nf er ence thatcan be dra w n fr om the evi dence
. Fi nal l y, ther e i s no i ndi cat i on i n t he r ecor d thatD r . G or t on di d notvol unt ar i l y ent eri nt o t he
e m p l o y m e n ta g r e e m e n tw i th G L H th a tr e q u i r e d h i m t o b e a n a c t i v e m e m b e ro f th e H C MH
m edi cal s t af

f
. B eca us e D r . G or t on w as the borr ow ed s ervantof H C M H , R ance gave pr oper

### Mississip pi C od e Sectio n 4 7-4 -1(4 ) pro vid es, in relev ant p art: 4 

### A per son c onvic te d of s im pleas sa ult of an em ploye e of a privatecor

re ctiona l fa ci lity whilesuc h em

ploye e i s a cting wi thin thesc ope of his or he r duty or em ploym ent sha llbe puni she d by a fine o f not more than OneThousand Doll ar s ( $1,000.00 ) or

by im pri sonm ent

for not m orethan fi ve ( 5) ye ar s, or both. Miss. C od e Ann. § 47 -4-1 (4) (R ev. 2 00 4). 19 pr e- s ui tnot i ce of

he rc l ai m agai ns tD r . G or t on pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 46- 1 1 (1). Se e M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -11 (1) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶38. R ece nt l y, i n T

ill is v . S ta te , 43 So. 3d 1127 ( M i s s . 2010) , thi s C our t hel d that a nur s e, empl oyed by a c ont ract or t hatpr ovi ded medi cal s ervi ces t o a pr i vat e corr ect i onal f aci l i ty,
w as the dual empl oyee of the contr act orand the pr i vat e cor rect i on al f aci l i ty. I n thatcas e, Z enas T i l l i s w as i ndi ct ed f orthe s i m pl e as saul tof K athy H ogue, a nur s e w ho w or ked at W a ln u t G ro v e Y o u th C o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty in a c c o rd a n c e w ith a c o n tra c t b e tw e e n H e a lth A ssu ran ce an d W alnu t G rov e, i n v iolati o n o f M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 4 7 -4-1 (4). T ill is , 4 43 So. 3d at1128. C ouns el f orT i l l i s ar gued t hatt he St at e’ s cas e f ai l ed bec aus e H ogue w as nota n e mpl oy e e of

W a l nu tG r ov e ; r a the r , de f e ns e c ou ns e l a s s e r t e d, H og ue w a s a c ont r act
e m p lo y e e o f H e a lth A s s u ra n c e . I d. at1130. T he St at e r es ponded t hat“w hi l e W al nutG r ove
m i ghtnotw r i t e herpayche ck, thati s the onl y pla ce s he w or ks
. . . . She’ s ther e eve ry day

. . . . H ogue w as a de f

act o empl oyee of

W al nutG r ove. ” I

d. ¶3 9
. W ith reg ard to w h ethe r H o g u e w as an em p loy ee o f W alnu t G rov e , the circu itco u rt hel d that“as f

aras the i nt erpr et at i on . . . thatos t ens i bl y i tc oul d be br oadl y i nt erpr et ed that

### 20

H ogue, i n thi s s ett i ng, and undert hes e ci r cumst ance s , w oul d qual i f y as bei ng a per s on w ho
w oul d f i tthe t erm of

empl oyee. ” I

d. O n appea l , thi s C our tagr eed a nd hel d that [ d ] u a l e mp l o y me n ta r i s e s “ wh e n a n e mp l o y e e i s e n g a g e d i n t h e s e r v i c e o f two ( 2) empl oyer s i n r el at i on t o the s ame act . ” R ay v. B abcock & W ilcox Co. , I

nc. , 3 8 8 S o . 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 0 ). See al s o N or ther n E lec. Co. v. P hil li ps , 660 So. 2d 1278, 1282 (M i s s . 1995) ( “[ i ] n M i s s i s s i ppi , one m ay be empl oyed b y m o re tha n o n e em p lo y e r . . . .”); D epen den t s of R ob ert

s v. Holida

y P arks, I nc. , 260 So. 2d 476, 478 (M i s s . 1972) ( “[ i ] ti s w el l sett l ed t hata per s on m ay be a s ervantof

tw o orm ore m ast ers atone t i m e as t o one ac t . ”)
. Such dual e m p lo y m e n t m a y e x is t e v e n i f o n ly o n e e m p lo y e r p a y s th e e m p lo y e e . See B i ggar t v. T exas E as tern T

r ansm is s i on Cor

p. , 235 So
. 2d 44 3, 444 -45 (M i ss. 1970) ( “[ t ] he f

actthatonl y one of

the em ployer s pai d B i ggart( her e R i ver C ons truct i on C orporat i on) does notal t erthe f actthatB i ggartw as i n the s ervi ce of

T exas E as t ern and B r ow n & R oot , I nc. , an empl oyer - empl oyee r el at i ons hi p betw een a ppel l ees and .
. . Bi ggartba s ed on the el ementof contr ol pr es entatthe t i m e. ”)
. A ccor di ngl y, the f actthatH ogue’ s payche ck ca m e f r om H eal th A s s ur ance i s notdi s pos i t i ve. R ather , gi ven H ogue’ s excl us i ve s ervi ce to W a ln u t G ro v e , this C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t sh e w a s a d u a l em p lo y e e o f b o th W al nutG r ove and H eal th A s s ur ance . T ill is , 43 So. 3d at1132. M or eover , thi s C ou rtopi ned i n a f ootnot e that“the borr ow ed
s ervantdoctr i ne [ w as al s o] appl i cabl e her e, beca us e H ogue w as w or ki ng excl us i vel y at W al nutG r ove, s uppl yi ng m edi cal s ervi ces w hi ch W al nutG r ove w as cons t i tut i onal l y r equi r ed t o pr ovi de i t s i nm at es . ” I d. ¶40. I n thi s cas e, D r. G ort on w as cl earl y the borr ow ed s ervantof H C M H and the dual
e mp l o y e e o f

b o th GL H a n d HC M H. Dr . Go r t o n ’ s e mp l o y me n tc o n tr a c twa s wi th GL H; h o w e v e r, th e e m p lo y m e n t co n tra c t p ro v id e d , in re lev a n t p a rt, th a t D r. G o rto n “ sh a ll m a in tain pr i vi l eges and mem ber s hi p on the ac t i ve medi cal s t af f of the H um phr eys C ounty M emori al H o sp it al an d the co u rt esy m ed ical staff o f the G ree n w o o d L eflore H o sp it al .
. . . ” F u rth er, D r . Gor t on was “ r e s po ns i bl e f orp r ov i di ng a pp r op r i a t e c a r e a nd tr e a t mentf orp a t i ent s at

### 21

G ort on C l i n ic, H um ph reys C ou nty M em ori al H ospit al , and the n ursi ng ho m e on an asneede d bas i s and w hen r eques t ed by [ G r eenw ood L ef l or e] H os pi t al
. . . . ” ¶ 4 1
. T h e r e c o r d i s c l e a r th a t Dr . Go r t o n wa s a n e mp l o y e e e n g a g e d i n th e s e r v i c e o f t wo empl oyer s i n r el at i on t o the s ame act : the ca r e and tr eatm entof pat i ent s atH um phr eys C o u n ty M e m o ri a l H o s p ita l. See R ay v. B abcock & W ilcox Co. , I

nc. , 388 So. 2d 166, 167 ( M i s s . 1980)
. M or eover , ther e w as no r eas on f orRance t o ha ve had know l edge thatG or t on
w as the em ployee of any hospit al other than H C M H . R ance’s chil d w as adm i t ted to D r. G or t on’ s s ervi ce a tH C M H , and the medi cal r ecor ds revea l thatatl eas tone nur s e and one
o th e r p h y s ic ia n a t H C M H d is c u s s e d th e c h ild ’s c a re w ith D r. G o rt o n , v ia te le p h o n e . ¶42
. A cc o rdin g ly, I m u st r espect ful l y d i sagree w i th the m aj ori ty’s conclusi on that D r. G o rt o n w as n o t the b o rrow ed serv an t o f H u m p h rey s C o u n ty M em o ri al H o sp it al. I w o u ld
a ffirm th e trial c o u rt’s d e n ial o f D r. G o rto n ’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. GRAVE S , P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.