Opinion ID: 64044
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Bush

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.