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 5 - CA- 0 1 2 8 0 - S CT GLEN DANCY
v. E A S T MI S S I S S I P P I S T A T E HO S P I T A L A ND T

HE M I S S I S S I PP I DEPAR TM

ENT OF M

ENTAL H EALTH
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 01/ 2005 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. LAR RY EUG ENE R OB ERTS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: ROY GREGG ROG ERS CH RI STOPHER M I CH AEL FALG OU T AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E S : E UGE NE M
. HAR L OW NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY DI S P OS I T I ON: ON DI RE CT AP P E AL : AF F I RMED
. ON CRO SS
- APPEAL: DI SM I SS ED A S M OO T - 12/ 07/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E SM I T H , C . J. , D I A Z A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A p at i ent t aking p artin t he C l ear i ng H ous e U ni t( “C H U ”) D ay Pr ogr am at E ast M iss iss ip p i S tate H o sp ital (“ E M S H ” ) w a s in ju re d a fte r e sc a p in g su p e rv isio n o n a fie ld trip t o W al
- M artand at t empt i ng t o com m i tsui ci de by runni ng i nt o t r af f i c on H i ghw ay 19. T he C irc u it C o u rt o f L a u d e rd a le C o u n ty fo u n d E M S H a n d its e m p lo y e e s im m u n e fro m liab ili ty
u n d e r t h e d is c re tio n a ry fu n c tio n e x e m p tio n o f t h e M is s is s ip p i T o rt C la im s A c t, s ee M i ss. C o d e A n n . S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )( d ). F ro m th a t ru lin g c o m e s th is a p p e a l a n d c ro s s -a p p e a l.

### Acco rdin g to Dan cy’s mo ther, G eorg ia Au g u stu s, Dan cy w as first committedto 1 

### EMSH in 1989 a ft er

int entionally overdos ing on pi ll s, suf fe ring from a lc ohol proble ms , and hal luc inating fr eque ntly. The pe rm is si on sl ips wer e s igne d on Sept em ber 6, 1997, Sept em

ber 21, 1998, May 2 

### 5, 1 99 9, S eptemb er 23 , 1 9 9 9 , an dAug ust 7 , 20 01 . Th ey p rov idedfor “p ermissionto particip ate in activ ities sup ervisedbyho spital staff o n andoff the g round s of [E MS H] wh ile [Dan cy] is a resident of C ontinu ing Care Unit.” T he p ermissionslips also p ro v idedthat, “partic ipati on in s uch a ctivi ti es is depe ndent up onap provalof the tre atme nt t eam and attend ing physician s.” T h e “ tr e a tm e n t te a m ” c o n s is te d o f a s o c ia l w o rk e r, a p s y c h o lo g is t, a n u rs e , a 3 re c re a tio n w o rk e r, an d a p sy c h iatris t. 

### 2 FACTS ¶2. O n J anuary 7, 1994, G l en D ancy ( “D ancy” ) w as c om m i t t ed t o EM SH by or derof the C hance ry C our tof

N oxubee Count y. T hi s w as t he f our t h t i m e D ancy had be en comm i t t ed to E M S H
. B e tw e e n h is c o m m itm e n t an d th e in c id e n t, A u g u stu s s ig n e d fiv e se p a ra te

1 “P erm i ssi on forP art i ci pati on i n A ct i vit i es” sl i ps. P ri or t o the i ncident , D an cy ’s l ast 2 at t empt ed es cape f

r om E M SH occurr ed on J anuary 3, 2001. ¶3
. A cc o rdin g to the M issi ssipp i D ep artm en t of H ea lth (“M D M H ”): i ti s t he goal of

m ent al heal t h t o pl ace the pat i enti n the l eas tr es t r i ct i ve e n v iro n m e n t th a t th e ir c o n d iti o n w ill a llo w . A n d th a t h a s b e e n sc ien tifica lly p ro v e n to b e th e m o st e ffe c tiv e w a y to tre a t a m e n tally ill p a tien t. A n d in f ul f i l l i ng t hatgoal t hey have a pr ogr am at[ E M SH ] t hati s cal l ed the C l ear i ng H o u s e U n it [“ C H U ” ]. T h e n o tes o f D a n c y ’s “ tre a tm e n t tea m ” in d ica te th a t “[D a n c y ] v o ice d a d e sire to p a rticip a te 3 i n the [ C H U ] [ D ] ay pr ogr am. ” A ccor di ng t o V el i s ci a C i t y- J ones ( “C i t y- J ones ”) , an i ns t i tut i on a l s oc i a l w orke ra tEM SH , the di f f e r e nc e be t w e e n CH U c l i e nt s a nd CH U D ay P rogram cl i ents i s that D ay P rogram cl i ents :

### The s tate d purpos e of the CHU i s “ [t ] o provi de e ac h patie nt t re atme nt in ar ea s that 4 

### will h elp them gro w into a more stable andrespo nsib le perso n. It is o ur b elief that w e sho uld suppor t e ac h of our

patie nts by provi ding a

continuing proc es s of

re habi li tati on in t

he least rest ri ctiv e e nvironme nt .”(Em phas is adde d). Claire Si ms , Direc tor

of Ac tivit y and Re cr eati on Ser

vic es at EMSH, s tate d a prim ar

y 5 

### purpo se of fieldtrips is “to no rmalize the p atients an d g et them into th e community .” 3 c o m e o v e r, an d th e y a tten d g ro u p s, a n d th e y a tten d a c tiv iti e s w ith th e c lien ts at[ C H U ] forus t o m oni t orand l etthei rtr eatm entt eam know how w e s ee that they’ r e doi ng; i f

t hey’ r e ca pabl e of

t r ans i t i oni ng f

r om t he uni tt hey w er e on overt o [ C H U ] as a f

ul l
- t i m e r es i dentof

[ C H U ] , t o t hen move t o the nexts t ep to p ro g re s s o u t o f t h e h o s p ita l.[ ] 4 T he cri t eri a foradm i ssi on i nto the C H U D ay P rogram i s: (1) P ati en ts are to b e re ferred b y their T rea tm en t T ea m o f C o n ti n u ing C are S ervi ces. (2 ) P a tien ts s h o u ld h a v e g ro u n d p riv ileg e s fo r a t lea st 2 -3 m o n th s p rio r to th e ir r e f e r r a l t o t h e CHU Da y P r o g r a m. ( 3) Pat i ent s s houl d notbe exhi bi t i ng any ac ut e ps ychot i c f eatur es orbehavi or di s or der s w hi ch coul d notbe ade quat el y m anage d i n an open s ett i ng. Da n c y wa s a d mi t t e d t o t h e CHU Da y P r o g r a m. ¶4. G r oup t her apy not es of M ar ch 20, 2002, i ndi cat e thatD ancy s ucce s s f ul l y par t i ci pat ed i n a f i el d t r i p. Tr e a t mentt e a m not e s f r om A pr i l 4 , 2 00 2, the d a y of the i nc i de nt , r evea l

“ [p ]atien t h a s in c re a se d c o n tro l o v e r h is h a llu c in a tio n s ... n o t ex h ib iti n g in a p p ro p ria te b e h a v io r s u c h a s s te a lin g fr o m o th e rs .” ¶5. C i ty- J ones arr anged f or t he C H U t o t ake a f

i el d t r i p t o W al
- M art . C l ear ance t o pl an 5 and i m pl ementt he f

i el d t r i p c ame f

r om a di s cus s i on of

the tr eatm entt eam. D ancy e xpr es s ed a des i r e t o par t i ci pat e i n the f i el d tr i p. A ccor di ng t o C i t y- J ones “i f
. . . [ pat i ent s ] w antt o go and [ ther e i s ] r oom , [ t he C H U ] ha[ s ] t he gr een l i ghtt o t ake them w i t houtconsul t i ng any of th e irin te rd is c ip lin a ry te a m .” S in c e D a n c y h a d b e e n a d m itte d to th e C H U D a y P ro g ra m , a

### 4

deci s i on w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of t he tr eatm entt eam, s he f el t“t hathe w as t o par t i ci pat e i n our p ro g ra m m in g .” ¶6
. O n fi eld tr ips, a w ri tt en p o li cy an d p ro c e d u re req u ir em en t m an d ates a p ati en t: staff
r at i o of 5: 1. O n thi s tr i p t her e w er e tw el ve pat i ent s and thr ee s t af f m ember s , t hus a r at i o of 4: 1. ¶ 7
. S e p a r a t e wr i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n s l i p s f o re a c h f i e l d t r i p we r e n o tr e q u i r e d b y E M S H. Si m s t es t i f

i ed “i thas j us ta l w ays be en under s t ood, ” thatthey w oul d be obt ai ned on a n annual b a sis . C ity -Jo n e s s ta te d if th e re w a s n o t an u p d a ted p e rm iss io n slip , “[t]ha t p e rso n w o u ld have be en r emoved f

r om t he tr i p. ” A ccor di ng t o D r . R ami r o M art i nez, t he chi ef exec ut i ve of f i cerof E M SH , t he perm i s s i on sl i p i s “notre al l y neces s ary i f the tr eatm entt eam f

el [ t ] l i ke the i ndi vi dual i s pr ogr es s i ng t o thatpoi nt . ” A l t hough D ancy’ s m otherhad s i gned perm i s s i on
s l i ps i n the pas t , s he now cl ai m s s he “i nf or m ed the hos pi t al t hatI di d notw anthi m r emoved f orany r eas on. I w as noti nf or m ed of the tr i p t o W al m art. . . . ” She asser t s t hat “hi s m i nd
w as n’ tgood att hatt i m e. ” S he now cl ai m s t o have unde r s t ood t hatE M SH neede d her p e rm iss io n to ta k e D a n c y o n e a c h s p e c ific fie ld trip , in s p ite o f th e fa c t th a t sh e sig n e d o n ly one perm i s s i on s l i p annual l y. T w o orthr ee da ys af t erthe i nci dent , A ug ustus r ece i ved another“Perm i s s i on f

orPar t i ci pat i on i n A ct i vi t i es ” s l i p, w hi ch s he di d nots i gn. ¶8. R egar di ng pa t i entobs ervat i on on f i el d tr i ps , D r . M art i nez s t at ed t her e w er e no f or m al p o li cies o r p roc ed u res. E M S H em p loy ee s ex p lai n ed that o n fi eld tri p s the staff m em b ers a re “s uppos ed t o be w here they ca n obs erve. ” R ecr eat i on as s i s t antD ebbi e Eggl es t on s t at ed “[ e] ach s t af

f m embert hatatt ended W al
- M arthad a c ert ai n group o f [ pat i ent s ] ” t o w at ch.

### 5

H ow ever , s uch obse r vat i on di d notpr ecl ude s i tuat i ons w her e pat i ent s m ay w al k outof s i ght
o f th e su p erv isi n g staff m em b er. ¶9
. T he us e of ph ys i c a l f or c e by s t a f

f membe r s w a s a l s o no t a mat t e r of f ormal po l i c y. I n m os ts i tuat i ons , C i t y- J ones s t at ed that“t he norm al pr ocedur e . . . w oul d be t o cont act[ the]
s ecur i ty of

f i ce a t[ E M SH ]
. A nd then t hey w oul d m ake the det erm i nat i on of w hats t eps t hey t ake. ” P r i ort o the a r r i va l of s e c ur i t y, ph ys i c a l f

or c e w ou l d b e a pp r op r i a t e “ w he r e a c l i ent i s a dange rt o s el f

ora dange rt o ot hers
. ” A ccor di ng t o Si m s , “comm on s ens e” a nd
e x p e rie n c e w e re th e m a n d a te d p ro to c o l in su c h situ a tio n s. D r. M a rtin e z p ro v id e d th a t a pat i entm ay be physi cal l y re s t r ai ned i f such r es t r ai nti s poss i bl e and “the pat i enti s becomi ng
... m a rk e d ly d is tu rb e d a n d [it is ] fo r h is s a fe ty .” ¶10. E ach s t af

f m ember on t he f

i el d t r i p had exper i ence r egar di ng of f
- gr ounds t r i ps . T he tri p to W al -M artw as apt l y d escr i bed by the cir cuitcou rtas f oll ow s: [ w ] hi l e atW al
- M ar t , [ D ancy] w as al l ow ed t o br ow s e. A f t era s hor tw hi l e, [ D ancy] appr oache d [ C i t y- J ones ] w i t h a W al
- M arts hoppi ng bag, w hi ch cont ai ned a W al km an r adi o. [ C i t y- Jones ] as ked [ D ancy] i f he had a r ece i pt and [ D ancy] r es ponded thathe had l os tt he r ece i pt . [Ci t y- J ones ] es cor t ed [D a n c y ] t o th e e lec tro n ics d e p a rtm e n t an d [C ity -Jo n e s] a sk e d th e c ler k if [ D ancy] had pur chas ed the W al km an. T he W al
- M artcl erk r es ponded no. T hen, [ C i t y- J ones ] es cort ed [ D ancy] t o t he f r ontof the s t or e t o a s k t he che ck o u t cle rk s if [D a n c y ] ha d p u rc h a se d th e ra d io . A t th a t p o in t, [ D a n c y ] trie d to l eave t he s t or e w i t h t he W al
- M arts hoppi ng bag cont ai ni ng t he r adi o and the al arm s ys t em act i vat ed. [ D ancy] then ca m e bac k i nt o the s t or e and w enti n t he o p p o s ite d ir e c tio n fr o m [C ity -J o n e s ].

### Specifically, Cit y-J ones ca ll ed CHU nur sePam el a Watkins and tol d her “wenee d 6 

### someb ody to come g et [Dan cy], becau se he is try in g t o t ak e th is W alkman .” Th is was in accord ance w ith app licable po licy andprocedure mand ating the notificatio n of a C HUnurse in e sc apesi tuati ons. The nur sethe n ca ll s s ec uri ty, whic h Watkins inf orm ed Ci ty- Jone s s he wo ul d d o. Th e Wa l
- Mart wa s a pp r ox i m at e ly a

thre e - t o- f

our m i nut e dri vef

r om EM SH
. Acc ording to Ci ty- Jone s, “[Dancy] was st anding there dem anding that the y give[the 7 

### Walkman] backto h im, it was h is, he h ad b ou ght it, he w antedit back... .” This occ urr ed fi ve to te n minute s a ft er her ini ti alca ll . Shetol d nurs e Watkins that 8 

### Dan cy “h ad left th e actual p hy sical park ing l o t, andthat w e need ed so mebo dyto g et him. Told he r whi ch way he wa s going on [Hi ghway] 19. ” Ci ty- Jone s st at ed that shedid not se e Dan cy’s escap e as a threat to his h ea lth“ unti l h e go t to where h e was g oin g to go out into the h ighway .” 6 T hen [ C i t y- J ones ] cal l ed t he C H U t o advi s e them of the s i tuat i on. [ ] [ C i t y- 6 Jo n e s] sta y e d a t th e fro n t of the sto re in a n atte m p t t o en su re tha t [ D a n c y ] did no tl e a ve t he s t or e . A ts ome p oi nt , D e bb i e Eggl e s t on , a no t he rEM SH empl oyee, came t o t he f r ontof t he s t or e and [ C i t y- J ones ] i nf or m ed herof

t he s i tua t i on . A f

e w mi nu t e s a f

t e r w a r d, [ D a nc y] c a me b a c k t o t he f r ontof t he s t or e, w i t houtt he shoppi ng bag, and had the W al km an r adi o outof i t s box, at t ache d t o hi s body w i t h t he hea dphon es on . [ D ancy] m ade a notherat t empt t o l eave [ t he] s t or e and M s . E ggl es t on gothi s at t ent i on. A tthatpoi nt , one of the W al -M artcust om er s ervi ce m anag ers t ri ed to t al k to [ D ancy ]
. M s. E gg l est on and t he cu st om er service m anag er con vinced [ D ancy ] t o rel i nq uis h the W al km an. A s a res ult , [ D ancy] beca m e agi t at ed and hi s behavi orbegan to e s c a la te .[ ] [C ity -J o n e s ] a n d M s . E g g le s to n a tte m p te d to ta lk to [D a n c y ].

7 H ow ever, [ D ancy ] w al ked ou tof the W al -M artst ore exi t . [ C i t y-Jones] f ol l ow ed [ D ancy] outof t he s t or e and c al l ed f

orhi m t o r eturn. D es pi t e her ef f or t s , [ D ancy] cont i nued t o w al k t hr ough t he W al
- M artpa rki ng l ot . [ C i t yJ ones ] cont i nued i n heref f or t s t o cal l af

t er[ D ancy] , w hi l e w at chi ng hi m l eave the parki ng l ot , cr os s ove rH i ghw ay 19 and pr ocee d up t he [ h] i ghw ay unt i l he w a s o u t o f h e r sig h t. [ C i t y- J ones ] cal l ed the [ C H U ] back t o i nf or m them t hat[ D ancy] had l ef tthe W al
- M artparki ng l ot . [ ] T her eaf t er , [ D ancy] j um ped i n f r ontof a vehi cl e [ on] 8 H ig h w a y 1 9
... . Da n c y l a t e rc l a i me d t h a th e wa s t r y i n g t o k i l l h i ms e l f “ [ b ] e c a u s e [ h e ] wa n t e d a r a d i o . ” As
a r es ul tof

hi s i nj uri es, D ancy a l l eges t hathe ca nnotrun orj um p. H e has s i nce be en
r eadmi t t ed t o E M SH and i s curr ent l y a pat i entther e.

### 7

¶1 1
. D an cy fi led a co m p lai n t ag ains t E M S H all eg ing that “[t ] h e ac ti o n s o f [E M S H ] w ere negl i genta nd i n r eckl es s di s r egar d f orthe s af ety a nd w el l be i ng of

[ D ancy]
. T he act i ons of [ E M SH ] pr oxi m at el y caus ed [ D ancy’ s ] i nj ur i es . . . . ” A ddi t i onal l y, the compl ai ntas s er t ed thatA ugus tus “af

f i r m at i vel y i nf

or m ed [ E M SH ] t hats he di d notw ant[ D ancy] r emoved f r om th e fa c ility fo r a n y re a s o n , d u e to h is m e n ta l c o n d itio n a n d s u b s e q u e n t b e h a v io r.” ¶12. M D M H pl ed, i nter al i a, t hat “[ D ancy’ s ] cl ai m s ar e barr ed by the pr ovi s i ons of t he M issi ssipp i C od e A nn otat ed S ec ti o n 1 1 -46 -9 a n d in p arti cu lar sub sec ti o n s (1)(b ), (c), (d), ( e), ( f ) , ( g) , ( h) , ( m ) , and (r )
. ” M D M H fi l ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s and/ ori n t he al t ernat i ve mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm enti n t he ci r cui tcour t . I n s uppor tof i t s m ot i on, M D M H ar gued that“the
a c tio n s o f E M S H w e re d isc re tio n a ry ; th e re fo re , M D M H is e n tit led to im m u n ity p u rsu a n t to M is s . C o d e A n n . S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )( d ).” ¶13. I n r es pons e t o t he m ot i on f or s um m ary j udgm ent , D ancy ar gued t hat t he f unct i ons of th e d e fe n d a n ts w e re m in iste ria l, no t d isc re tio n a ry , an d , the re fo re , the y w e re n o t en tit led to i m m uni ty. D ancy a l s o as s ert ed i f one as s um ed the f

unct i ons w er e di s cr et i onary: i ti s cl earand convi nci ng f r om the t es t i m on y of the empl oyees of the D ef endantt hator di nary car e w as notus ed and t hatt he empl oyees of t he D ef endants how ed r eckl es s di s r egar d f orthe s af ety of [ D ancy] i n t he exe cut i on of the pol i ci es and pr ocedur es of the D ef endanton t hi s f

i el d t r i p. ¶ 1 4
. In its m e m o ra n d u m o p in io n a n d ju d g m e n t, th e c irc u it co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t: the ac t i ons of

t he empl oyees i n the handl i ng of t he pat i ent s and the im p le m e n ta tio n o f th e p o lic y w [a s ] dis cret i on ary . .. . [W ]he re th e e m p lo y e e is re q u ire d to rely u p o n h is o w n jud g m e n t i n the p e rfo rm a n c e o f a d u ty , th a t d u ty i s di s cr et i onary. T he empl oyees had t o use thei row n j udgm enti n how the pat i ent s w er e al l ow ed t o r oam ar ound t he st ore . . . . [ T ] he C our ti s of the opi ni on t hatt aki ng pat i ent s on fi el d tr i ps i s di s cr et i onary and thatt he e m p lo y e e s o f E M S H a re im m u n e e v e n if th a t d is c re tio n is a b u s e d . [ See M i ss. C o d e A n n . S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )( d )]. T h e re fo re , this Courtis of the opi ni on that

### The c ircuit c ourt additi onal ly c onclu dedthat “[n ]one o f the ev iden ce befo re the Court 9 

### ind icates that E MS H emp loy ees acted w ithreckless d isregardfo r th e safetyo f th e Plaintiff.” 8 th e Mo tio n fo r S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t is w e ll ta ke n a n d th a t th e M

D M H is i m m une f

r om l i abi l i t

y underSect i on 11- 46- 9[( 1)] ( d) , M C A
. A s s uch, the C our tf i nds t he M

D M H is ent i t l ed to a j udgm ent as a m at t erof

l aw . (E m p h asis ad d ed ). 9 I S S UES ¶15
. T he fol l ow i ng t w o i ssue s w ere raised , the fi rs t on app eal and t he second on cross a p p e a l:I
. W hetherthe ci r cui tc our te rr ed i n di s m i s s i ng al l of D ancy’ s cl ai m s as barr ed by di s cr et i onary f

unct i on i m m uni t y. I I
. W hethert he ci r cui tcourter r ed i n denyi ng M D M H ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s f or i m proper and / or i nsuff

i ci ent s ervi ce of process. T h is C o u rtfi n d s Issue I is d ispo sit ive, an d th ere fore , ad d resse s on ly th at i ssu e. T h is C o u rt d ism iss e s th e c ro ss -a p p e a l as m o o t. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶16. T hi s appeal i nvol ves w hethera gover nm ent al ent i t y i s exemptf r om l i abi l i t y under the M i s s i s s i ppi T ortC l ai m s A ct . I n Mitch e ll v. City o f G re e n v ille , 84 6 S o. 2d 10 28 (M i ss. 2003) , thi s C our ts t at ed: [ i ] m m uni t y i s a ques t i on of l aw and i s a pr operm att erfors um m ary j udgm ent underM i s s . R
. C i v. P. 56. T h is C o u rt re v ie w s d e n o v o a tr ia l c o u r t’ s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Short v. Colum bus Ru bber& G as ket Co. , 5 3 5 S o . 2 d 6 1 , 6 5 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ). A ll e v id e n c e is v ie w e d 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 a n t. P al m erv. B iloxiR eg’l

Med. Ctr. , I

nc. , 5 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). Mitch e ll , 846 So. 2d at1029- 30. T her ef or e, w e r evi ew de novo.

### The Fe deralTort Claim s Ac t has a

s im il ar e xem pti on whi ch provi des that

the Uni te d 10 

### State s Gove rnm ent

is not l ia blefor : anyclaim basedup onan act or omissio n of an emp loy ee of th e Go vernment, exe rc is ing duecar e, in the e xec uti on of a st at uteor r egul ation, whether or not suc h st at uteor r egul ation be val id, or base d upon theexe rc is e or per for mance or the f ai lure t o exe rc is e or p erform a dis cr etionary f unction or

duty on t he part of a f ede ra l a genc y or an empl oyeeof the Gove rnm ent , whe the r or not t he dis cr etion involve d be a

buse d. 28 U.S. C. § 2680( a)
. 9 A N A L Y S IS I . W h e t h e r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s mi s s i n g a l l o f D a n c y ’ s c l a i ms as barred by di s cre t i onary f unct i on i m m uni t y. ¶1 7. “The [ M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l a i ms Act ] w a i ve s s ov e r e i gn i mm un i t y f r om cl ai m s f

or
m o n e y d a m a g e s a ri s in g o u t o f t h e to rt s o f g o v e rn m e n ta l e n ti tie s a n d th e ire m p lo y e e s ... .” L .W . v. Mc Co m b S e

p a ra te M u n . S c h . D ist. , 7 5 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 3 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). H o w ev er,
cert ai n ci r cumst ance s ar e exe m ptf r om t hi s w ai ver of i m m uni t y. O ne s uch exe m pt i on p ro v id e s: [ a] governm ent al e nt i t y a nd i t s e m pl oyees act i ng w i t hi n the cour s e and s cope o f th e ir e m p lo y m e n t o r d u ties sh a ll notbe l i abl e f orany cl ai m : . . . ( d) [ b] as ed u p o n th e e x e r c i s e o rp e r f o r ma n c e o rth e f

a i l u r e t o e x e r c i s e o rp e r f o r m a d isc re tio n a ry fu n c tio n o r d u ty on t he par tof a governm ent al ent i t y or e m p lo y e e th e re o f, w h e th e r o r n o t th e d is c re tio n b e a b u s e d
... . M iss . C o d e A n n . S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )(d ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: 10 Sect i on 11- 46- 9 appea r s t o be patt erned af t er28 U
. S. C
. § 268 0(a) , the
‘ di s cr et i onary f

unct i on’ e xcept i on t o the Feder al T or tC l ai m s A ct . T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tha s r ecogni zed t hatthe m aj or i t y of a ct s i n the day-t od ay o p era ti o n s o f go v ern m en tal ac ti v it ies i n v o lve th e e x erc ise o f som e fo rm of di s cr et i on, how ever , notal l of thes e act s ar e pr ot ect ed underthe exc ept i on. I n det erm i ni ng t he s cope of t he ac t s pr ot ect ed undert he exc ept i on, t he Supr eme C our thel d t hatonl y thos e f unct i ons w hi ch by nature ar e pol i cy

### The ordinary c ar e s tandard is not a cons ide rati on under this te st as “Mi ss . CodeAnn. 11 

### § 11-46- 9(1) (d) exem

pts governm ent alenti ti es from lia bil it y of a disc re ti onar

y func ti on or duty ‘ whether

or not thedis cr etion beabus ed. ’” Co llins v. Talla ha tchie C ou nty , 876 So. 2d 284, 289 ( Mis s. 2004). 10 deci s i ons , w hetherm ade a tt he oper at i onal orpl anni ng l evel , ar e pr ot ect ed. U n ited S tates v. G au bert , 4 9 9 U .S . 3 1 5 , 3 2 2 , 1 1 3 L . E d . 2 d 3 3 5 , 1 1 1 S .C t. 1267 ( 19 91 ). ‘ T he purpos e of t he exc ept i on i s t o pr eventj udi ci al s econdg u essin g o f l eg isl ati v e a n d ad m inistrati v e d ec isi o n s g rou n d ed in so cia l, ec o n o m ic, a n d p o li ti ca l po li cy thro u g h the m ed ium o f an a cti o n in to rt . ’ Id
. at 323 ( quot i ng U

ni ted States v. V

ar i g A ir lines , 4 6 7 U .S . 7 9 7 , 8 1 4 , 1 0 4 S .C t. 2 7 5 5 , 8 1 L
. E d
. 2 d 6 6 0 (19 8 4 )). Jones v. Mis s . D ep’t

of T r ansp. , 7 4 4 S o . 2 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). ¶18
. “I n det erm i ni ng w hethergovernm ent al conducti s di scr et i on ary the C ourtm us t ans w er tw o ques t i ons : ( 1) w hethert he act i vi t y i nvol ved an el ementof choi ce orj udgm ent ; and i f s o, ( 2) w hethert he choi ce orj udgm enti n s upervi s i on i nvol ves soc i al , economi c orpol i t i cal pol i cy al t ernat i ves . ” B rid g e s v . P e a rl R ive r V

a lley W a terS u p p ly D ist. , 793 So. 2d 584, 588 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng Jones , 7 4 4 S o . 2 d at 26 0 ). 11 ¶19. R egar di ng ques t i on ( 1) , t hi s C our tm us tdet erm i ne w hethert he f unct i on “i nvol ved an el ementof

choi ce orj udgm ent , ” id ., i.e. is th e fu n c tio n d is c re tio n a ry o r m in iste ria l? T h is Co u r th a s s t a t e d t h a t“ [ a ] d u t y i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y i f i tr e q u i r e s t h e o f

f i c i a l t o u s e h e ro wn j udgm entand di s cr et i on i n t he per f or m ance t her eof

. ” T . M . v. N o b litt , 650 So. 2d 1340, 1343 (M i ss. 1995) ( ci t i ng P oyn er v. G il m ore , 1 7 1 M i s s . 8 5 9 , 1 5 8 S o . 9 2 2 , 9 2 3 ( 1 9 3 5 ) )
. By contr as t , an ac ti s mi ni s t er i al “ [ i f ] t he duty i s one w hi ch has been pos i t i vel y i m pos ed by l aw
an d it s perf

orm ance requir ed ata t i m e and i n a m ann er or under cond i t i on s w hich are
s peci f i cal l y des i gnat ed, t he dut y t o per f or m undert he condi t i ons s peci f i ed notbei ng

### 11

depende ntupon t he of

f i cer ’ s j udgm entordi s cr et i on. ” L . W. , 7 5 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 4 1
. See a l so Collins , 876 So. 2d at289. ¶2 0. T he f

unct i on s a ti s s ue i n t hi s c a s e i nc l ud e : ( I ) a dmi t t i ng D ancy t o t he C H U D ay P ro g ra m ; (i i) p e rm itt in g D a n c y to a tten d th e fie ld trip to W a l-M a rt; (iii ) o b se rv in g D a n c y in W al -M ar t ; and ( i v) perm i t t i ng D ancy t o l eave W al
- M artw i t houtat t empt i ng phys i cal
r es tr ai nt . N ei t herpar t y al l eges t hatany of thes e f unct i ons l acke d “an e l ementof choi ce or j udgm ent . ” See B r idges , 7 9 3 S o . 2 d a t5 8 8
. Ad mi s s i o n o f Da n c y t o t h e CHU Da y P r o g r a m,
w hi ch i ncl uded perm i s s i on t o att end D ay Pr ogr am fi el d tr i ps , w as w i t hi n the di s cr et i on of t he tr ea tm en t t ea m . P ati en t ob serv ati o n o n fi eld tri p s w as flex ib le a n d d id n o t r eq u ir e staff
m em b ers to c o n stan tl y h av e p ati en ts in s ig h t. T h e u se o f ph y sical restr aint req u ir es staff
m ember s t o m ake a s s es s m entof the s i tuat i on a nd then t o e xer ci s e comm on s ens e i n m aki ng a j udgm entcal l bas ed upon thei rexper i ence . T her ef or e, t hi s C our tconcl udes t hatques t i on (1 ) is an sw e re d in th e aff irm a tiv e , a s th e ac tiv iti e s in v o lv e d ele m e n ts o f c h o ice o r ju d g m e n t. ¶21. T her ef

or e, w e addr es s que s t i on ( 2) , “w hetherthe choi ce orj udgm enti n s upervi s i on i nv olves s oci al , economi c orpol i t i cal pol i cy al t ernat i ves . ” Id
. The r e a r e no e c on omi c or pol i t i cal pol i cy al t ernat i ves ati s s ue her e, l eavi ng onl y an ana l ys i s of the s oci al pol i cy
a ltern a tiv e . T h u s, w e a re lef t w ith a sin g u lar in q u iry : d id th e c h o ice o r ju d g m e n t in
s upervi s i on i nvol ve s oci al pol i cy? U nques t i onabl y, t he choi ce a nd judgm ent s r equi r ed of thes e s t at e w or ker s emanat e f r om , orr el at e t o, m at t er s of hum an w el f

ar e. T he C H U D ay Pr ogr am see ks t o i nt egr at e thes e pat i ent s i nt o s oci ety as a w ho l e, r equi r i ng a mul t i tude of di s cr et i onary deci s i ons by s t af f m ember s , as oppos ed t o t he mi ni s t er i al f unct i ons of

the

### This ca seis cl early distingui sha ble from thi s Court ’s rec ent dec is ion in Ha ll . The re 12 

### a patient in a lo ckedun it at EM SH , wh o h ad b een d escribedin recent pro gress n otes a s a “dan ger to herself and oth ers,” 93 6 S o. 2 d at 9 23 , was serio uslyinjured after fallin g fro m a third -storywind owdurin g an escape attemp t. See id . at 92 1. T he injured patient, alo ng with two oth er patients hadtakensheets from a linencloset; freely entered anunlo cked , off-limits conf erence room adj oining thenurs e’ s s tati on; rem oved a window pane (whic h la cke d a securityscreen); an d attemp ted to escape. See id . at 923- 24. During t he e sc ape , m ost

of the nurse’s aides w ere watch ing televisio n. See id . at 924. This Court st at ed: East M ississipp i is requ ired b y statute to pro vid e p atients withmental health care andtreatment inacco rd withco ntemp orarypro fession al stand ards. Miss. Co de A nn . § 4 1-2 1-1 02 (6) (Rev . 20 05 ). Adherin g to the man dates o f this statute is no t discretio nary , and , therefo re, it is mini sterial . Dr . Hi att t es ti fi ed that co ntemp orarypro fession al stand ards d ictate that: (1) the do ors to roo ms wher e a patien t might

be pr es ent

and uns uper

vis ed s hould beloc ked; (2) se curit y sc re ens shoul d be pl ac ed on windows in room s whe rea pati ent mi ght be p resent andunsuperv ised; and(3 ) patients sho uldbe mo nito red ina wayso that any out-of-the-ordinar y ac ti ons on the part

of the pati ent s m ight

be det ec te d. We f ind t hat theduti es Eas t Mi ss is sippi owed to i ts patie nts wer e not dis cr etionary and that t

he di sc re ti onar

y func ti on immuni ty provis ions of the Mississip pi To rt Claims Act do no t shield East Mississip pi fro m liability
... . 936 So. 2d at 925 ( em

phas is adde d). 12 nur s es ai des i n Miss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o

f Me n ta l H

e a lth v. H

a ll , 93 6 S o. 2d 91 7 (M i ss. 2 0 0 6 ). 12 ¶2 2
. T h e p o licy u n d erlying q u esti o n (2) is that “[s] tat e tort stan d ard s ca n n o t ade q u ately contr ol thos e governm entdeci s i ons i n w hi ch, t o be e f f ect i ve, the deci s i on makermustl ook to c o n sid e ra tio n s o f p u b lic p o licy a n d n o t m e re ly to e sta b lish e d p ro fe ss io n a l sta n d a rd s o r to
s t andar ds of

gener al r eas onabl enes s . ” W om ble v. Singing R i verHos p. , 618 So. 2d 1252, 1263 ( M i s s . 1993) ( quot i ng P ru e tt v. City o f R o se da le , 42 1 S o. 2d 10 46 , 10 51 -52 (M i ss. 1982) )
. I n m aki ng t he di s cr et i onary f un ct i on det erm i nat i on, thi s C our thas adopt ed the

### 13

“publ i c pol i cy f

unct i on t es t ” announce d by t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti n U nited States
v. G au bert , 4 9 9 U .S . a t 3 2 2
. See Jones , 7 4 4 S o . 2 d at 26 0
. A p p lying th at t est, “this C o u rt
m us tdi s t i ngui s h betw een r eal pol i cy dec i s i ons im pl i cat i ng governm ent al f unct i ons and
s i m pl e ac t s of

negl i gence w hi ch i nj ur e i nnocentci t i zens . ” G ale v. T hom as , 759 So. 2d 1150, 1 1 6 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ). See al s o G au bert , 499 U
. S. at323 ( quot i ng B erkovit zv. U nited States , 4 8 6 U .S . 5 3 1 , 5 3 7 , 1 0 8 S .C t. 19 5 4 , 1 9 5 9 , 1 0 0 L . E d . 2 d 5 3 1 , 5 4 1 (1 9 8 8 )) (“ w h e n p ro p e rly
cons trued, t he exc ept i on ‘ pr ot ect s onl y governm ent al act i ons and dec i s i ons bas ed on
co n side rati o n s o f pu b li c p o li cy . ’”). ¶23. I n G au bert , the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rtstat ed “[i ] f th e ro u ti n e o r fr eq u en t n ature of a de ci s i on w er e s uf

f i ci entt o r emove an otherw i s e di s cr et i onary actf r om t he s cope of

the
exce pt i on , t he n c ou nt l e s s po l i c y- ba s e d d e c i s i on s by r e gu l a t or s e xe r c i s i ng da y- t o- da y
s upervi s or y author i t y w oul d be ac t i onabl e. T hi s is n ot t he rul e of ourcas es . ” 499 U
. S. at 334. T her e f

or e , the mer e f

a c ttha tp a t i e nto bs e rva t i on a nd p hy s i c a l r e s t r a i nta r e r ou t i ne or f r equentdeci s i ons does notr enderthem devoi d of pol i cy i m pl i cat i ons . M or eover , “[ w ] hen
es t abl i s hed governm ent al p ol i cy, as expr es s ed ori m pl i ed by s t atut e, r egul at i on, oragenc y gui del i nes , al l ow s a G overnm entagentt o exer ci s e di s cr et i on, i tm us tbe pr es um ed thatt he agent ’ s act s ar e gr ounded i n pol i cy when exe r cis i ng thatdis cr et i on . ” Id . at 3 2 4 (e m p h a sis added)
. A ppl i ed her e, thi s s t andar d i nvol ves tw o s t eps . Fi r s t , M i s s . Code A nn. Sect i on 41- 4- 7(g) gi ves M D M H dis cret i on “[ t ] o est abli sh and prom ulgat e reas on able m i nim um st and ards” and pol i ci es . S econ d, M D M H has “es t abl i s h[ ed] and pr om ul gat e[ d] ” s t andar ds w hi ch author i ze di s cr et i on on t he partof i t s agent s . Pat i entobs ervat i on a nd the phys i cal r es tr ai nt
o f pa ti en ts pro v ide tw o ex am p les o f suc h d iscreti o n in p rac ti ce . T h ere fore , this C o u rt

### 14

co nc l ud e s tha tM D M H ’ s o ve r a l l p ol i c y of a utho r i z e d di s c r e t i on was i mpl i c a t e d he r e. T he
c h o ice o r ju d g m e n t in v o lv e d in p a tien t o b se rv a tio n a n d th e p h y sic a l re stra in t o f p a tien ts “i nvol ves s oci al
. . . pol i cy, ” B r idges , 793 So. 2d at588, such thatt he governm ent al f unct i ons ati s s ue w er e di s cr et i onary. ¶ 2 4
. H a v in g re a c h e d th is c o n c lu sio n , the c ro ss -a p p e a l, Issu e II, is m o o t. CO NC L US I ON ¶25. A ccor di ngl y, t hi s C our t ( 1) af f i r m s on di r ect appea l t he ci r cui t cour t ’ s j udgm entt hat th e g o v e rn m e n tal fu n c tio n s a t issu e w e re d isc re tio n a ry a n d , the re fo re , im m u n e fro m liab ili ty
u n d e r M iss . C o d e A n n . S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )(d ) a n d (2 ) d ism iss e s th e c ro ss -a p p e a l as m o o t. ¶ 2 6
. ON DI RE CT AP P EA L: AF F I RM ED . ON CROS S - AP P EA L: DI S M I S S ED AS M OO T. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND C OBB , P. J J . , DI AZ , EAS LE Y, CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON, J J . , CONCUR. GRAVE S , J . , CONCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y.