Medicaid – Mississippi Appeals Blog

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of March 7, 2024

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions last Thursday. There is an appeal of the dismissal of an MTCA claim on summary judgment, an appeal of a Medicaid reimbursement-rate decision, and an appeal by a victorious pro se party. The headliner, however, is the appeal of Willie Godbolt’s convictions for the infamous 2017 shooting of eight people in Lincoln County.

Federinko v. Forrest County, Mississippi, 2023-CA-00204-SCT (Civil – MTCA)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege a tortious or negligent act with respect to the MTCA defendants’ decision not to conduct an autopsy or obtain postmortem blood and fluids.
(9-0)

Mississippi Division of Medicaid v. Women’s Pavilion of South Mississippi, PLLC, 2023-SA-00098-SCT (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision vacating Medicaid’s reimbursement-rate decision, holding that the administrative officer did not have to defer to Medicaid’s initial decision but was to make findings of fact and a determination of the issues presented.
(8-0: Beam did not participate)

Stratton v. McKey, 2023-CP-00451-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the pro se plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion to vacate a judgment in his favor that awarded him possession of his classic truck and monetary damages.
(9-0)

Godbolt v. State, 2020-DP-00440-SCT (Criminal – Death Penalty – Direct Appeal)
Affirming conviction of four counts of capital murder, four counts of first-degree murder, two counts of kidnapping, one count of attempted murder, and one count of armed robbery garnering four death sentences, six life sentences, and two twenty-year terms, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) denying a motion to server; (2) transferring venue to a neighboring county (with a jury drawn from a distant county); (3) “limiting” voir dire where the process lasted four days and produced nearly 800-pages of transcript; (4) denying a motion to suppress statements made to media and law enforcement; (5) denying a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the defendant’s home, vehicle, cell phone, other electronic devices; (6) allowing the defendant’s wife to testify under Rule 601(b)(2); (7) admitting evidence of prior bad acts; (8) admitting 911 calls; (9) not ordering a psychiatric evaluation that the defendant opposed; (10) admitting Facebook messages over an authentication objection; (11) only allowing the defendant (who exercised his right not to testify) limited time for allocution during closing arguments; (12) denying motion to exclude victim impact evidence; and the Supreme Court also (13) deferred the ineffective assistance claim to the PCR phase; (14) held that there was no Brady violation regarding the destruction of the defendant’s phone after all data and information from the phone were given to the defendant; (15) that the defendant’s right to an impartial jury was not violated; (16) held that there was no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct; (17) that the “heinous, atrocious or cruel” aggravator was not unconstitutional; (18) that the death penalty was not unconstitutional; (19) that the death penalty was not disproportional; (20) and that there was no error, so the cumulative error argument was without merit.
(7-2: King dissented, joined by Kitchens)

NOTE– You should never treat my summaries as a substitute for reading cases that you intend to rely on. This is especially true in a case like this one. This is probably the longest summary I have posted, but I have only scratched the surface.

Other Orders

Love v. State, 2021-CT-01101-SCT (granting pro se cert petition)

Norwood v. Smith, 2021-IA-01404-SCT (dismissing interlocutory appeal)

Rehabilitation Centers, Inc. v. Williams, 2023-CT-00453-SCT (denying in part and dismissing in part petition for cert and reverse and stay of mandate or in the alternative petition for interlocutory appeal)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of August 25, 2022

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)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of June 30, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today: a case that resolved a fight over the Mississippi Division of Medicaid’s efforts to recoup overpayments to a senior care facility, an MTCA issue that wasn’t, and a post-conviction death penalty decision regarding a request to transfer DNA evidence.

Wilkinson County Senior Care, LLC v. Mississippi Division of Medicaid, 2020-SA-01332-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s order allowing the Mississippi Division of Medicaid to recoup a substantial overpayment made to a senior care facility for the years 2002-2003 that the DOM did not demand until 2011, holding that the delay did not bar DOM’s recover because (1) neither equitable estoppel nor any other legal or equitable principles barred the claim; (2) the decision was not arbitrary and capricious, clearly erroneous, or unsupported by substantial evidence; and (3) the delay did not violate the facility’s due process rights.
(9-0)

Strickland v. Rankin County School District, 2019-CT-01669-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury/MTCA/Negligence)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the school district, juking the question of whether the defendant was entitled to discretionary function immunity (that split the COA 5-5) and holding that the plaintiff had not established the basic element of negligence where the evidence provided by the plaintiff–a cross-country runner for the school–was stung by a wasp, was examined by at least one coach, was told to “man up” and run the race, began running, felt dizzy just after the mile marker, and fell and hit his head.
(5-1-2) (Justice Ishee concurred in result only, joined in part by Chief Justice Randolph. Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King. Justice Beam did not participate.)

NOTE – Here is a summary of the Court’s analysis of the element of breach:

Manning v. State, 2020-CA-01096-SCT (Civil – Death Penalty – Post Conviction)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a request to transfer DNA evidence to a different facility for additional DNA testing after the Court previously granted PCR to allow testing but six years of testing had allegedly yielded inconclusive results, holding that the circuit court had authority to decide the motion to transfer the evidence and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion.
(7-2) (Justice King dissented, joined by Justice King)

Other Orders

Rules for Court Reporters, 89-R-99021-SCT (appointing Hon. Leslie D. King, Kati Vogt, Julie Mims, and Latanya Allen as members of the Board of Certified Court Reporters for two-year terms from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2024)

Bolton v. John Lee, P.A., 2020-CA-00344-SCT (assigning appeal to Court of Appeals for a decision within 270 days of the entry of this order)

Doe v. Doe, 2020-CT-00853-SCT (denying cert)

Manhattan Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Barbara Hollinshed, 2020-CT-00882-SCT (denying cert)

Jiles v. State, 2021-CT-00034-SCT (denying cert)

The Mississippi Bar v. Mayers, 2021-BD-00268-SCT (suspending Urura W. Mayers from the practice of law pending final resolution of the petition for discipline filed by The Mississippi Bar)

Longo v. City of Waveland, Mississippi, 2021-CA-00735-SCT (consolidating two appeals)

Johnson v. State, 2022-M-00303 (denying reconsideration)

Hand Down List