Opinion ID: 1862032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Factor Number 1

Text: ¶ 59. The Gaming Control Act states that when the executive director receives notice that there is a dispute over alleged winnings he shall, conduct whatever investigation is deemed necessary, and shall decide if the licensee should pay the alleged winnings. Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-159(1)(b) (1991). The circuit court found that the failure of the casino to notify the Commission, as required by the statute, contributed to the denial of due process. ¶ 60. Neither the Commission nor CDS deny a failure to notify. However, CDS contends that it was unaware of any dispute until its attorneys were faxed a petition for reconsideration in July, 1995, three months after the incident and one month after Splash Casino ceased operations. Moreover, only Freeman and Splash Casino knew of any possible dispute at the time of the incident. The issue of whether there was a dispute about Freeman winning the jackpot is itself in dispute. Freeman claimed that she won and was attempting to talk with a supervisor but was not allowed to discuss her alleged winning with anyone. In contrast, Garner and Jernigan believed Freeman was satisfied that she had only won $5.00 rather than the Cool Millions jackpot. Thus, no dispute existed to them. ¶ 61. Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-159(1)(a) & (b) are clear. They state as follows: (1) Whenever a licensee refuses payment of alleged winnings to a patron, the licensee and the patron are unable to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the patron and the dispute involves: (a) At least Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), the licensee shall immediately notify the executive director; or (b) Less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), the licensee shall inform the patron of his right to request that the executive director conduct an investigation. Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-159(1)(a) & (b) (1991) (emphasis added). It is uncontested that Splash Casino did neither in this case. What is contested is whether Freeman and Splash Casino were unable to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the patron. ¶ 62. CDS argues that Freeman chose not to sue Splash Casino. Furthermore, according to Jernigan's testimony, Freeman did not appear to dispute Garner's explanation at the time, nor did she appear from the surveillance tapes to consider the matter in dispute when she left the casino. Therefore, since CDS was unaware of a dispute and Splash Casino did not believe the matter to be in dispute, it is presumptuous to characterize the failure to notify the Commission as a denial of due process. ¶ 63. Assuming Splash Casino should have notified and failed, then the appropriate remedy is addressed by Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-159(3), which states that [f]ailure to notify the executive director or patron as provided in subsection (1) is grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to XX-XX-XXX through XX-XX-XXX, inclusive. The circuit court is therefore correct in stating that [t]here is no evidence that either Splash or CDS were disciplined for violation of this reporting requirement. However, a failure to notify would not entitle Freeman to the jackpot winnings which the evidence shows she did not win. Otherwise, this Court would be unduly punishing CDS beyond the mandates of the statute and granting Freeman a jackpot she did not win. ¶ 64. Furthermore, due process has not been violated here. Freeman was not prejudiced by the failure to notify the Commission. She ultimately received all the process due according to the mandate of the Legislature. She had ample opportunity to put on all the testimony and evidence which she desired.