Title: Premier Radiology, P.A. and Jeffrey C. Howard, M.D. v. Thelma Davis, Individually and on Behalf of the Wrongful Death Statutory Beneficiaries of Travis Davis, Deceased
Citation: 2022-IA-00916-SCT
Docket Number: N/A
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: May 23, 2024

Serial: 251225 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No. 2022-IA-00916-SCT PREMIER RADIOLOGY, P.A. AND JEFFREY C. HOWARD, M.D. v. THELMA DA VIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTORY BENEFICIARIES OF TRAVIS DAVIS, DECEASED ORDER FILED MAY 2.0 2024 OFf,~.l~,S~-~ c~~La Appellants Appellee This interlocutory appeal is before the en bane Court on its own motion. Having considered the records and the briefs, the Court determines that further review is unnecessary and that this appeal should be dismissed. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this interlocutory appeal is dismissed and thatthe appellants shall bear the costs of this appeal. SO ORDERED, this the J O~ay of May, 2024. \ ,. ( I ·- -~, ~ 2:_:.:__. ) Q J.4__, DAWN H. BEAM, JUSTICE FOR THE COURT AGREE: RANDOLPH, C.J., KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ., MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN AND ISHEE, JJ. DISAGREE: COLEMAN AND GRIFFIS, JJ. GRIFFIS, J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY COLEMAN, J. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2022-IA-00916-SCT Premier Radiology, P.A. and Jeffrey C. Howard, M.D. v. Thelma Davis, Individually and on Behalf of the Wrongful Death Statutory Beneficiaries of Travis Davis, Deceased GRIFFIS, JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT: 11. Premier Radiology, P.A., and Jeffrey C. Howard, M.D., filed their petition for interlocutory appeal on September 12, 2022. Presiding Justice Kitchens, Justice Coleman, and Justice Beam granted the petition on November 7, 2022. Then, the final brief was filed September 19, 2023. Two years after the petition was filed, this Court now dismisses the interlocutory appeal with no opinion, decision, explanation, or instruction. 12. Rule 1 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that "[t]hese rules shall be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." Today's dismissal does not advance the lofty goal of a "speedy" and "inexpensive determination of every action." 13. This Court alone is responsible for this significant delay. I am of the opinion that the parties are now entitled to a decision. I respectfully disagree with and object to this order. I would retain this case and issue an opinion that decides the issues raised. COLEMAN, J., JOINS THIS SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT.