Opinion ID: 1656455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is Dr. Quesnel an employee of SPCH, whose liability is therefore governed by the MTCA?

Text: ¶ 21. The MTCA `provides the exclusive civil remedy against a governmental employee for acts or omissions which give rise to a suit.' Watts v. Tsang, 828 So.2d 785, 791 (Miss.2002) (citing L.W. v. McComb Separate Mun. Sch. Dist., 754 So.2d 1136, 1138 (Miss.1999)); Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-7(1)(2002). Therefore, any tort claim filed against a public employee, including publicly employed physicians, must be brought under the MTCA. Id. And 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(2) (2002). The MTCA makes the state responsible for the negligence of its employees at a financial level the legislature has determined to be reasonable. Watts, 828 So.2d at 791. ¶ 22. In Miller v. Meeks , this Court held that the MTCA extends immunity to state employed physicians who are not acting as independent contractors. 762 So.2d 302 (Miss.2002). We also established a five-part test in Miller to determine whether a state employed physician is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of MTCA liability. Id. See also Smith v. Braden, 765 So.2d 546 (Miss.2000). The Miller test considers the following factors: (1) the nature and function performed by the employee; (2) the extent of the state's interest and involvement in the function; (3) the degree of control and direction exercised by the state over the employee; (4) whether the act complained of involved the use of judgment and discretion; and (5) whether the physician received compensation, either directly or indirectly, from the patient, for professional services rendered. Miller, 762 So.2d at 310. Wright briefs these factors extensively on appeal; and I agree with the majority that certain of them favor Wright's position. However, the majority fails to acknowledge this Court's holding in Knight where we held that if physicians do not receive compensation for the practice of medicine from sources other than the state hospital then it is not necessary to address the test enunciated in Miller. Knight v. McKee, 781 So.2d 121, 123 (Miss.2001). The evidence in this case makes clear that Dr. Quesnel does not receive any compensation other than that provided by SPCH. Accordingly, citing Knight, the circuit court below did not apply the Miller test. It then ruled that Dr. Quesnel was not an independent contractor and was therefore protected under the MTCA. ¶ 23. The majority's reasoning on this matter is wrong. While Dr. Quesnel indeed does not receive compensation outside of SPCH, nor does he engage in any form of outside employment, certain evidence in this case conflicts with his employment contract, thus unquestionably calling his employment status into question. The Conditions of Admissions Form (Form) that Wright signed upon admission to Dr. Quesnel's care is in stark conflict with Dr. Quesnel's employment contract. The circuit court addressed this issue, but ruled that since Wright had not relied on the Form, that it was not dispositive of the issue of Dr. Quesnel's employment status; rather, the employment contract was. However, while the circuit court cites to these arguments, they are nowhere found in the record before this Court. Further, while Wright may not have relied on the Form, this does not avoid the fact that SPCH has explicitly represented to the public that it is not Dr. Quesnel's employer.