Opinion ID: 1630837
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Nature of the Function Performed by Dr. Harkey

Text: ¶ 8. In the case sub judice, Dr. Harkey was in the operating room with a neurosurgery resident at the time of the alleged negligence. As expressed by the trial judge, Dr. Harkey was participating in the educational process of a neurosurgical resident and `serving a public function by providing care for a Medicaid patient. The nature of this function was one of continued education and furtherance of [Dr.Tyler's] career path of becoming a physician.' Sullivan v. Washington, 768 So.2d 881, 885 (Miss.2000) (holding that a faculty-physician who merely supervised an operation performed by a surgical resident was protected under the MTCA). However, unlike the situation in Sullivan, Dr. Harkey performed the surgical procedure himself. Clayton argues that this fact weighs heavily in favor of finding that Harkey was acting as an independent contractor. Aside from claiming that this case is the polar opposite from Sullivan, Clayton offers no authority to support her argument. ¶ 9. The mere fact that Dr. Harkey, as opposed to a surgical resident, performed the operation does not in and of itself suggest he was acting as an independent contractor. The education of the surgical resident during the operating procedure is not significantly different from a classroom lecture and demonstration. In addition to observing the surgical procedure, Dr. Tyler dictated and performed the initial history and physical on Clayton, he signed the consent form, and he wrote the majority of the progress notesall under the supervision of Dr. Harkey. As Dr. Harkey argues, this is all a part of the teaching and learning process. Inasmuch as Dr. Harkey was acting in his capacity as a teacher and professor of neurosurgery, this factor weighs in favor of finding that Dr. Harkey was acting as a state employee at the time of the alleged negligence.