After a full day of lawyering on the road, here are my summaries of today’s decisions from the Mississippi Supreme Court. There is a decision in a dispute between a report and the Secretary of State over use and development of tidelands, a decision in a reimbursement dispute between the Division of Medicaid and a nursing home, and a decision in a workers’ comp bad faith case analyzing whether a compromise settlement of a comp claim on a denied basis constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies.
State v. Long Beach Harbor Resort, LLC, 2021-CA-00430-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the resort, holding that the Secretary of State’s lease with the city related to development and use of tidelands had ratified a prior lease between the city and the resort and therefore the State had no right to require the resort to enter into a separate tidelands lease.
(9-0)
Mississippi Division of Medicaid v. Yalobusha County, 2021-SA-00030-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the chancery court’s ruling in a dispute between the DOM and a nursing home over costs the facility submitted for reimbursement on its Medicaid cost report, holding that the DOM correctly interpreted statutes and its decisions denying the costs at issue were supported by substantial evidence.
(7-2: Justice Griffis dissented, joined by Justice Maxwell)
Thornhill v. Walker-Hill Environmental, 2020-CT-01181-SCT (Civil – Torts/Bad Faith)
Affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision reversing the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s workers’ comp bad faith suit, holding that the plaintiff’s 9(I) settlement of his workers’ comp claim without a finding of compensability constituted an exhaustion of his administrative remedies and the circuit court therefore had jurisdiction to hear the bad faith claim.
(9-0)
ADDENDUM – A point of contention in Thornhill was the Supreme Court’s prior holding in Miss. Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 832 So. 2d 474 (Miss. 2002). In Cook, the Supreme Court held that a 13(j) indemnity-only settlement under Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-37(10) constituted exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Employer/Carrier in Thornhill argued that Cook did not apply in this case because the plaintiff in Thornhill had settled on a compromise basis and compensability was never admitted or determined by the Commission. But the Court of Appeals dug into the record in Cook and determined that the Supreme Court in Cook mislabeled the settlement in that case. The Cook settlement was actually a 9(i) settlement under § 71-3-29 (i.e. full and final settlement), but the Supreme Court mistakenly labeled it as a 13(j) indemnity settlement. The Supreme Court in Thornhill agreed that it erred when it labeled the settlement in Cook a 13(j) settlement under Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-37(10) but found that this mislabeling did not disturb the findings in Cook or affect the outcome in this case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court in Thornhill held that a 9(i) compromise settlement constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies because the parties “had no further business with the Commission.”
Hutto v. State, 2017-DR-01207-SCT (dismissing motion for appointment of counsel for representation for successive petition for PCR)
Lambes v. Lambes, 2020-CT-00095-SCT (denying cert)
Denham v. Denham, 2020-CT-00675-SCT (granting cert)
Tallant v. State, 2020-CT-01077-SCT (denying cert)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 