Garth Bissette v. University of Mississippi Medical Center, 282 So.3d 507

Background

Dr. Garth Bissette, a tenured UMMC psychiatry professor, underwent a post-tenure review after receiving multiple unsatisfactory evaluations; a three-member committee (two appointed by department chair Norquist, one chosen by Bissette) unanimously recommended termination.
Rather than continue the review process, Bissette and UMMC executed a Separation Agreement (May 31, 2011) providing pay/benefits through November 2011, a favorable recommendation, and mutual confidentiality/non‑disparagement clauses; Keeton signed for UMMC.
In March 2012, UMMC faculty member Dr. William Woolverton allegedly made disparaging statements about Bissette at an NIH meeting; Woolverton later died during the litigation.
Bissette sued UMMC and several individual defendants for breach of the Separation Agreement, fraud/fraudulent inducement, slander, civil conspiracy, and related torts; he sought damages for lost wages among other relief.
The Hinds County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to defendants; Bissette appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Separation Agreement bound only UMMC and Bissette (individuals were third‑party beneficiaries), (2) UMMC was not liable for Woolverton’s out‑of‑scope statements, (3) intentional tort claims against UMMC were barred by governmental immunity, and (4) the slander claim against Woolverton abated on his death.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether individual doctors (e.g., Woolverton) were parties bound by the Separation Agreement	The Agreement’s "for the benefit of" language makes UMMC employees (including Woolverton) parties obligated to confidentiality/non‑disparagement	The phrase creates third‑party beneficiaries, not contracting parties; only UMMC and Bissette are parties	Agreement was unambiguous: individuals are third‑party beneficiaries, not parties bound to perform
Whether UMMC breached the Separation Agreement via Woolverton’s March 2012 statements	Woolverton’s comments breached confidentiality/non‑disparagement; UMMC is liable because Woolverton was a UMMC employee	Woolverton acted outside scope of employment and was not an agent; NIH paid travel/stipend; no evidence he spoke on UMMC’s behalf	No breach by UMMC: Woolverton was not a contracting party and his statements were not within scope/agency for UMMC
Whether intentional tort claims (fraud, slander, conspiracy) can be maintained against UMMC	Bissette alleged fraudulent inducement, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy relating to the review and Separation Agreement	MTCA immunity bars governmental liability for intentional torts like fraud, slander, defamation; such claims must proceed against individuals	Court held MTCA precludes suing UMMC for those intentional torts; summary judgment proper for UMMC on those claims
Whether slander claim against Woolverton survived his death	Bissette argued the claim survives and could be pursued against Woolverton’s estate or successors	Defendants relied on precedent that slander (a common‑law intentional tort) does not survive the death of wrongdoer or victim	Slander claim abated on Woolverton’s death under Catchings; claim extinguished and summary judgment appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Adams v. Graceland Care Ctr. of Oxford LLC, 208 So. 3d 575 (Miss. 2017) (summary judgment standard)
Royer Homes of Miss., Inc. v. Chandeleur Homes, Inc., 857 So. 2d 748 (Miss. 2003) (contract ambiguity and interpretation)
Burns v. Washington Savs., 171 So. 2d 322 (Miss. 1965) (privity and third‑party beneficiary principles)
Colyer v. First United Methodist Church of New Albany, 214 So. 3d 1084 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (contract cannot bind nonparty)
Booth v. S. Hens, Inc., 244 So. 3d 888 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (employer liability requires scope of employment)
Horace Mann Life Ins. Co. v. Nunaley, 960 So. 2d 455 (Miss. 2007) (elements of negligent misrepresentation)
Catchings v. Hartman, 174 So. 553 (Miss. 1937) (slander does not survive death of wrongdoer or injured party)