Mississippi Department of Human Services v. S.C.
119 So. 3d 1011
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Minor U.C. was placed in MDHS custody and placed at Alliance Crossings, a residential psychiatric facility in Lauderdale County.
- While at Alliance in June 2007, U.C. allegedly was the victim of statutory rape by another patient; plaintiff alleges additional sexual acts occurred and that MDHS failed to investigate or report.
- S.C. sued MDHS (state agency), Alliance, and Alliance’s parent PSI in Hinds County, alleging venue was proper there because MDHS is headquartered in Hinds County.
- Defendants moved to transfer venue to Lauderdale County; the trial court denied the motions without detailed findings.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed whether, under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA), venue against the state must lie in the county where the negligent act/omission occurred or whether decisionmaking at state headquarters can establish venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue for MDHS under MTCA | Venue is proper in Hinds because MDHS headquarters (where supervisory authority rests) is located there and omissions/decisions emanated from HQ | Venue is proper only in Lauderdale because the central negligent acts/omissions (the alleged sexual acts and failures surrounding them) occurred at Alliance in Lauderdale | Court held plaintiff failed to plead facts showing any MDHS decisions occurred in Hinds; MTCA venue requires acts/omissions location; transfer to Lauderdale ordered |
| Severance and transfer of nonstate defendants | (implied) If MDHS venue is Hinds, Alliance argued the claims against it should be severed and moved to Lauderdale | Alliance: alternatively, sever and transfer Alliance to Lauderdale | Court did not decide severance because it resolved venue under MTCA and ordered transfer to Lauderdale |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Jones v. Quinn, 716 So.2d 624 (Miss. 1998) (MTCA venue lies where negligence occurred)
- Flight Line, Inc. v. Tanksley, 608 So.2d 1149 (Miss. 1992) (venue begins with well-pleaded complaint; plaintiff choice sustained absent no credible factual support)
- Med. Assurance Co. of Miss. v. Myers, 956 So.2d 213 (Miss. 2007) (decisionmaking location can determine venue under general venue statute)
- Holmes v. McMillan, 21 So.3d 614 (Miss. 2009) (venue proper where decision to reject settlement was made)
- Miss. Crime Lab. v. Douglas, 70 So.3d 196 (Miss. 2011) (venue controlled by where the act/omission occurred)
- S. Cent. Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Guffy, 930 So.2d 1252 (Miss. 2006) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Moss, 873 So.2d 76 (Miss. 2004) (standard of review for legal questions)