Opinion ID: 64044
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Negligence per se and Medical Negligence

Text: Mrs. Tebo argues that Dr. Bush violated various provisions of the civil commitment statutes. These violations are said to constitute negligence per se. Questions are also raised concerning whether Dr. Bush was negligent in his medical evaluation of Mrs. Tebo. However, because Dr. Bush is a public employee, issues of immunity control the outcome. A section of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act provides that no employee shall be held personally liable for acts or omissions occurring within the course and scope of the employee's duties. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-7. Excluded are fraud, malice, libel, slander or any criminal offense. Id. Mrs. Tebo argues that Dr. Bush is not entitled to this immunity because the doctor acted willfully and maliciously. As explained with respect to the intentional infliction and malicious prosecution claims, there is not sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact that Dr. Bush acted with malice. Moreover, Mrs. Tebo does not dispute that Dr. Bush is subject to this statutory immunity provision and does not explain how an exception for intentional torts could apply to a claim for per se negligence in violating a statute or negligently providing medical care. Dr. Bush is entitled to this statutory immunity.
Dr. Holbrook does not argue that he is entitled to the immunity for public employees. He cites us to another statute that immunizes actions taken under the civil commitment statutes that were in good faith in connection with the opinions of physicians and psychologists, among other things. Id. § 41-21-105(1). Mrs. Tebo claims that Dr. Holbrook has no immunity because there can be no good faith given her evidence that the statutory procedures were not followed and the medical standard of care was not upheld. Good faith is not defined by the statute. In other contexts, good faith has been defined as the absence of intent to defraud or seek unconscionable advantage. In re Estate of Wheeler, 958 So.2d 1266, 1273 (Miss.Ct.App.2007). It has been held that the immunity applies to charges of wrongful commitment, unlawful detention, battery (based on non-consensual treatment) and the like. It speaks to negligence only insofar as one might deviate from the appropriate standard of care in making the commitment decision. Carrington v. Methodist Med. Ctr., 740 So.2d 827, 829 (Miss.1999). It is precisely the making of the commitment decision that was at issue herenot, as in Carrington, the failure to prevent a suicide occurring after a commitment took place. Mrs. Tebo accuses Dr. Holbrook of two negligence-based claims; negligence is at the core of what the statute immunizes. Summary judgment is affirmed as to the negligence claims against the doctors.