Tuesday, February 28, 2012

MSSC second sitting announced

Here. Ashley Ogden has arguments defending two judgments - $3.6M for a flooded apartment that destroyed prototype "Bible-based board games," and a $1.5M slip-and-fall.

The lawsuit against UMMC and the IHL Board by 3 Jackson hospitals, over whether or not the Certificate of Need laws apply to UMMC, is being submitted without oral argument.

As usual, this news predates docket entries in many of the cases, so anyone checking the docket but not the calendar will wait a week or two before finding out about his or her case's status.

What is this case about? Argument April 4.

Haley Barbour, Governor of the State of Mississippi v. William J. McCoy, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Representative Johnny W. Stringer, and Jim Hood, Attorney General for the State of Mississippi ex rel. The State of Mississippi (Arg.)
Hon. Patricia D. Wise, Ruling Judge, Hinds County Chancery Court (4 vols.)
APPELLANT - Michael Wallace, Wise Carter Child & Caraway, P.A., Jackson
APPELLEE - George W. Neville and Meredith M. Aldridge, Office of the Attorney General, Jackson
... I had forgotten this bit from the board-games case:
Defendants disputed that there was water damage and suggested plaintiffs had suffered no personal injury. Particularly, a company maintenance man went to the apartment and could find no water damage. [Plaintiffs countered that the water was 6 to 8 inches deep.]
That's, er, quite a fact issue there.

... Chris in comments says that the Barbour case has to do with the issue of partial vetos, and points us to an AG opinion in dispute.


  1. Barbour v. McCoy is a line-item veto case, I think. See 2011 WL 2883593 for the AG opinion on it.

  2. Thanks, Chris! I just wish I still had Westlaw and not Lexis .... :(

  3. You can get them for free at http://government.westlaw.com/msag/--the WL citations still show up in the searches.

  4. The UMMC suit should be a non-starter. The other hospitals want to monopolize the "business aka money" side of healthcare and reap the benefits of hiring the recently graduated physicians at no cost to themselves. To wit: have their cake and eat it, and UMMC's at the same time. The hospital at UMMC supports the medical school and its educational mission, not the other way around. It is a common misunderstanding on how it is actually structured in practice and in theory and more importantly, who pays the bills.

  5. Did not know that! Thanks, Chris!

    ... Razor, I have difficulty matching up what's reported on the case (must UMMC get a CON like every other hospital?) with your comment, but perhaps you have inside knowledge that I do not.

    This article may be of interest.

  6. I'm familiar with the article.

    The CON process impedes UMMC's ability to provide medical education and research on the most current technologies and provide medical care according to current standards of care.

    In the not to distant past, most of the local hospitals enjoyed providing training sites for UMMC's medical education. This allowed them to provide care on new equipment and in the most modern facilities and receive payments for the services provided by residents: essentially free labor. If UMMC has faster access to the most advanced equipment they can provide training, research and pay for the equipment being utilized.

    Why would UMMC, a state medical care and training asset be required to compete with other for profit hospitals (I'm including all of the metro hospitals from the perspective of percentage-wise they don't provide very much indigent care)that aren't providing medical training and research in a CON process?

    As the article states, UMMC is absolutely having to compete for the insured patients like everyone else. However, the difference is in how the profits are being spent. How the profit (the margin Dr. Keeton speaks of) is spent is the primary difference in having to support education and research expenses(UMMC's mission). What is earned from "paying" patients is quickly spent to support indigent care after mission expenses are paid for.

    The CON process should not be required at the expense of impeding medical education, research and the provision of the bulk of indigent care.

  7. Good arguments. Perhaps the law should be amended to waive the CON requirement for teaching purposes. At present however there is no such exception.