Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1

Section 11-46-1(e) includes the Mississippi Highway Commission in its definition of the State.

McKay v. Boyd Const. Co., Inc. · filed 1990-11-28(e)

"State" means the state of Mississippi and any office, department, agency, division ... whether or not such body or instrumentality thereof has the authority to levy taxes or to sue or be sued in its own name. Therefore, Mississippi Highway Commission is the State. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(e) (Supp. 1990).

Section 11-46-1(g)'s definition of “State” includes the Mississippi Transportation Commission.

Watkins v. Transportation Comm, MS · filed 1996-07-15(g)

The definition of "State," supra, clearly encompasses the MTC.

Section 11-46-1’s definition of “state” includes Jackson State University.

Glover v. Jackson State University · filed 1997-08-14

The Tort Claims Act took effect in April of 1993, but immunity was not waived for the state (JSU falls within § 11-46-1's definition of "state") until July 1, 1993.

Section 11-46-1(d) defines governmental entity to include the state and political subdivisions for purposes of sovereign immunity.

State v. Hinds County Bd. of Sup'rs · filed 1994-03-31(d)

Miss.Code Section 11-46-1(d) states "Governmental entity" means and includes the state and political subdivisions as herein defined. ... A suit is barred, in this instance, under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1 or § 11-46-6.

Section 11-46-1(j) covers a state university hospital such as UMC.

Pickens v. Donaldson · filed 1998-01-07(j)

Finally, the alleged negligence occurred at a university hospital of the state, UMC. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(j) (Supp. 1999).

Section 11-46-1's definition of “state” includes Jackson State University.

Glover v. Jackson State University · filed 2000-01-27

The Tort Claims Act took effect in April of 1993, but immunity was not waived for the state (JSU falls within § 11-46-1's definition of "state") until July 1, 1993.

Section 11-46-1 includes a UMMC practice plan that provides clinical services within the definitions of both “political subdivision” and “state.”

Mozingo v. Scharf · filed 2002-10-24(i), (j)

By providing clinical patient services, UAS is carrying out state governmental activities on behalf of UMMC. Therefore, UAS falls squarely within the definition of a political subdivision. ... UAS falls within the definition of "state" because it is an instrumentality of UMMC.

Section 11-46-1(j) includes a UMMC medical practice group within the definition of “State” when the group is an instrumentality of the hospital.

Watts v. Tsang · filed 2002-10-17(j)

UAS meets the definition of "State" because it is an instrumentality of UMMC, a state teaching hospital.

Section 11-46-1(j) classifies the Mississippi Department of Human Services as a state department.

Little v. DHS · filed 2002-11-07(j)

As DHS is a state "department" under Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(j), proper service would be had on the chief executive officer of DHS.

Section 11-46-1(j) includes the Mississippi Department of Transportation in the definition of “state,” making it subject to suit under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Johnson v. James Construction Group, LLC · filed 2004-02-20(j)

Therefore, under a plain reading of this statute, MDOT falls under the definition of the “state” provided in the MTCA.

Section 11-46-1(j) places state universities within the immunity of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Johnson v. Alcorn State University · filed 2006-05-23(j)

State universities fall within the immunity of the MTCA. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(j) (Rev.2002).

Section 11-46-1(j) includes a state university within the coverage of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Pritchard v. Von Houten · filed 2007-02-06(j)

USM is a state university that falls within the coverage of the MTCA. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(j) (Rev. 2002); Miss.Code Ann. § 37-119-1 (Rev. 2001).

Section 11-46-1(j) includes UMMC as a state instrumentality subject to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

University of Mississippi Medical Center v. McGee · filed 2007-05-24(j)

UMMC is an instrument of the State of Mississippi and is subject to the requirements of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”).

Section 11-46-1(j) treats the University of Mississippi Medical Center as a state instrumentality subject to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. McGee · filed 2008-12-11(j)

UMMC is an instrument of the State of Mississippi and is subject to the requirements of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act ("MTCA").

Section 11-46-1(j) brings public hospitals within the MTCA’s coverage.

Sidney Carlton Gorton, M.D. v. Rance · filed 2009-06-22(j)

Public hospitals are covered by the MTCA. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(j) (Rev. 2002).

Section 11-46-1(j) includes public hospitals among the entities covered by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Gorton v. Rance · filed 2011-01-27(j)

Public hospitals are covered by the MTCA. Miss.Code Ann. § 11 — 46—l(j) (Rev.2002).

Section 11-46-1 covers a hospital owned and operated by city and county governments, along with its employees, under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Stark v. Greenwood Leflore Hospital · filed 2009-06-23

GLH was owned and operated by the City of Greenwood, Mississippi and Leflore County, Mississippi, which are political subdivisions of the State of Mississippi; therefore, GLH and its employees were entitled to the protections afforded by the MTCA. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1 (Supp.2008).

Section 11-46-1 includes a school district within the MTCA’s definitions of “governmental entity” and “political subdivision.”

Covington County School District v. Magee · filed 2010-01-28

The District constitutes a “governmental entity” and a “political subdivision” pursuant to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA). Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1 (Rev.2002).

Section 11-46-1 classifies a school district as a governmental entity and political subdivision under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Swindle v. Neshoba County School District · filed 2013-09-10

As stated, the School District “constitutes a ‘governmental entity’ and a ‘political subdivision’ pursuant to the MTCA.” See Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Magee, 29 So.3d 1, 4 (¶ 7) (Miss.2010) (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1 (Rev.2012)).

Whether an entity is an instrumentality of a state commission for MTCA coverage requires a fact-specific determination.

Former Board of Trustees & Members of Mississippi Comp Choice Self-Insurers Fund v. Mississippi Workers' Compensation Gr · filed 2014-11-20(j)

Whether GGA is an instrumentality of the Commission is a fact-driven determination, It cannot be made until all facts are developed and considered, as shown by our caselaw.

Section 11-46-1(j) includes hospitals in the definition of “State,” so a hospital is a state entity whose own chief executive officer may receive notice of a claim.

Spencer Ivy v. East Mississippi State Hospital · filed 2016-05-12(j)

The same is true here; Section 11-46-1(j)’s definition of “State” includes hospitals, and the DMH is not a substitute for EMSH’s CEO.

Section 11-46-1(j) includes a state hospital as a state entity even when another state department has authority over it.

Spencer Ivy v. East Mississippi State Hospital · filed 2016-05-12(j)

Charles Carlisle is EMSH’s—the “state entity’s”—CEO under the MTCA.

Section 11-46-1(j) includes UMMC within the MTCA’s definition of “state.”

Forrest Gen. Hosp., J. Keith Thompson, Hattiesburg Clinic, Grif A. Leek & S. Miss. Emergency Physicians, P.A. v. Steven · filed 2018-04-19(j)

Further, UMMC is within the definition of "[s]tate" under the MTCA. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(j).

Section 11-46-1’s definition of “State” includes the Mississippi Department of Employment Security as a state agency.

Huddleston v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security · filed 2025-06-10

Under Mississippi law, the term “State” includes “the State of Mississippi and any office, department, agency, division, bureau, commission, board, institution, hospital, college, university, airport, or other instrumentality thereof.” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1. This broad definition encompasses MDES, as it is a state agency whose primary function is to promote employment security and administer unemployment benefits.

Section 11-46-1 defines “State” for MTCA immunity to include state agencies and divisions, encompassing MDCPS and its local offices.

Taylor v. Preciado · filed 2025-09-30

In defining the “State” for purposes of immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”), Mississippi law includes any “office, department, agency, division, [and] bureau” in the definition of “State.” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1. So, Mississippi law treats MDCPS as an arm of the state and its local offices as non-autonomous divisions within MDCPS, not as a local or county entity.11 This factor favors immunity.

Section 11-46-1(g) and (j) define governmental entities covered by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act; Pearl River Community College qualifies.

Owens v. Pearl River Community College · filed 2022-05-05(g), (j)

The Court agrees with the Defendants that there is no dispute that PRCC is a governmental entity as defined by the MTCA. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(g), (j).

Section 11-46-1 defines a governmental entity to include a political subdivision, including a municipality.

Moore RESTRICTED FILER v. Monroe County Detention Facility · filed 2024-11-12(g), (i)

The Board, as a municipality, is considered a governmental entity under the MTCA. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(g), (i) (“governmental entity” includes “political subdivision” and “political subdivision” includes municipalities).

Section 11-46-1’s definitions cover a junior college such as Jones College as a governmental entity under the MTCA.

Thompson v. Pass Christian Public School District · filed 2024-11-30(g), (i)

Jones College is a “governmental entity” covered by the MTCA.

Section 11-46-1(j) includes UMMC as a state entity covered by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Papin v. University of Mississippi Medical Center · filed 2023-05-18(j)

UMMC is a state entity covered by the MTCA.

Section 11-46-1(i) defines a school district as a political subdivision of the state.

Gressett v. Newton Sep Mun Sch Dist · filed 1994-09-02(i)

Any doubt that the Newton County School District constitutes a political subdivision of the state is removed by Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(i), which specifically provides that a school district constitutes a political subdivision of the state.

Section 11-46-1(i) defines a school district as both a political subdivision and a governmental entity.

Lang v. Bay St. Louis/Waveland School District · filed 1997-10-21(i)

Section 11-46-1 specifically provides that a school district constitutes a "political subdivision" as well as "governmental entity" of the state.

Section 11-46-1(i) defines political subdivisions to include a municipality and its instrumentality.

Chamberlin v. City of Hernando · filed 1996-05-10(i)

Section 11-46-1(i)(Supp. 1997) defines political subdivisions as a municipality and its instrumentality. There is no entity entitled "Hernando Ambulance Service," as such service is provided by the municipality of Hernando.

Section 11-46-1(i) defines a school district as a political subdivision of the state.

Gressett v. Newton Separate Mun. School Dist. · filed 1997-07-17(i)

Any doubt that the Newton County School District constitutes a political subdivision of the state is removed by Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(i), which specifically provides that a school district constitutes a political subdivision of the state.

Section 11-46-1(g)(i) defines a school district as a political subdivision and a governmental entity under the MTCA.

Brewer v. Burdette · filed 1997-08-01(g)(i)

The MTCA defines a "school district" as a "political subdivision" and a "governmental entity."

Section 11-46-1(i) defines political subdivisions to include municipalities and their instrumentalities; a municipal ambulance service is not a separate entity.

Chamberlin v. City of Hernando · filed 1998-06-18(i)

Section 11-46-1(i)(Supp. 1997) defines political subdivisions as a municipality and its instrumentality. There is no entity entitled "Hernando Ambulance Service," as such service is provided by the municipality of Hernando.

Section 11-46-1(i) includes Madison County Medical Center within the Act's definition of a political subdivision.

Henderson v. Un-Named Emergency Room · filed 1998-07-23(i)

MCMC is a political subdivision as defined in Miss. Code Ann. §11-46-1(i), and all tort claims against MCMC which arose after 1993 are governed exclusively by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Section 11-46-1(i) includes counties and community hospitals in the definition of “political subdivision.”

Jones v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-GOLDEN · filed 1999-03-18(i)

Both the county and the community hospital are specifically included in the definition of "political subdivision" as set out in § 11-46-1(i).

Section 11-46-1(i) classifies a school district as a political subdivision and governmental entity.

Lang v. Bay St. Louis/Waveland School District · filed 1999-04-29(i)

Section 11-46-1 specifically provides that a school district constitutes a "political subdivision" as well as "governmental entity" of the state. ... As a political subdivision, the Bay St. Louis/Waveland School District is generally protected from negligence suits by sovereign immunity.

Section 11-46-1(i) classifies a school district as a political subdivision under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Lawrence County School District v. Clayton Brister, Jr. · filed 1999-05-10(i)

The Mississippi Tort Claims Act classifies the School District as a political subdivision.

Section 11-46-1(i) includes counties and community hospitals in the definition of political subdivision.

Jones v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-Golden Triangle, Inc. · filed 1998-03-04(i)

Both the county and the community hospital are specifically included in the definition of "political subdivision" as set out in § 11-46-1(i).

Section 11-46-1 defines a school district as both a political subdivision and a governmental entity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Duncan v. Chamblee · filed 1998-03-31(g), (i)

The MTCA defines a "school district" as a "political subdivision" and a "governmental entity."

Section 11-46-1 defines a school district as both a political subdivision and a governmental entity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

LW v. McComb Separate Mun. School Dist. · filed 1999-09-02(g), (i)

The MTCA defines a "school district" as a "political subdivision" and a "governmental entity." Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(g), (i) (Supp.1998); see also Gressett v. Newton Separate Mun. Sch. Dist., 697 So.2d 444, 446(¶ 4) (Miss.1997).

Section 11-46-1 defines a school district as both a political subdivision and a governmental entity.

Duncan Ex Rel. Duncan v. Chamblee · filed 1999-06-03(g), (i)

The MTCA defines a "school district" as a "political subdivision" and a "governmental entity."

Section 11-46-1(i) includes joint airport boards as political subdivisions subject to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, even though it does not specifically list them.

Spencer v. Greenwood/Leflore Airport Authority · filed 2000-11-08(i)

Airport boards, although not specifically listed, are by definition subject to the MTCA.

Section 11-46-1(i) includes school districts in the definition of political subdivisions.

Harris v. Jefferson County School District · filed 2001-04-09(i)

Working in conjunction with Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-3(1), Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(i) defines "political subdivisions" to specifically include school districts.

Section 11-46-1(i) classifies a school district as a political subdivision under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

LAWRENCE COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. v. Brister · filed 2001-10-25(i)

The Mississippi Tort Claims Act classifies the School District as a political subdivision. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(i) (Supp.2001).

Section 11-46-1 includes a UMMC physician practice plan that provides patient services within its definitions of “political subdivision” and “state.”

Mozingo v. Scharf · filed 2000-02-11(i), (j)

By providing clinical patient services, UAS is carrying out state governmental activities on behalf of UMMC. Therefore, UAS falls squarely within the definition of a political subdivision. ... UAS falls within the definition of "state" because it is an instrumentality of UMMC.

Section 11-46-1(i) defines a governmental community hospital as a political subdivision covered by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Henderson v. UN-NAMED EMERGENCY ROOM, MADISON COUNTY MED. CENTER · filed 2000-04-06(i)

MCMC is a political subdivision as defined in Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(i), and all tort claims against MCMC which arose after 1993 are governed exclusively by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Section 11-46-1(i) includes community hospitals among the political subdivisions covered by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Wayne General Hospital v. Hayes · filed 2001-02-05(i)

Third, Wayne General Hospital is a community hospital for purposes of the MTCA and is therefore entitled to venue in the county in which the principal offices of its governing body are located, i.e., Wayne County.

Section 11-46-1(g)(i) defines a school district as a political subdivision and a governmental entity.

Brewer v. Burdette · filed 2000-10-12(g)(i)

The MTCA defines a "school district" as a "political subdivision" and a "governmental entity." Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(g)(i) (Supp.1999).

Section 11-46-1(i) includes school districts in the definition of political subdivisions.

Harris Ex Rel. Harris v. McCray · filed 2003-10-23(i)

Working in conjunction with Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-3(1), Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(i) defines "political subdivisions" to specifically include school districts.

Section 11-46-1(i) includes a joint airport board that performs public and governmental functions within the definition of a political subdivision.

Spencer v. GREENWOOD/LEFLORE AIRPORT · filed 2003-01-09(i)

It is clear, therefore, that a joint airport board which exercises powers which are declared to be public and governmental functions, exercised for a public purpose, and matters of public necessity, as does the Airport Authority in this case, is a "political subdivision" under § 11-46-1(i) ("any body politic or body corporate other than the state responsible for governmental activities").

Section 11-46-1(i) includes community hospitals in the MTCA’s definition of political subdivision.

Wayne General Hosp. v. Hayes · filed 2004-03-25(i)

Third, Wayne General Hospital is a community hospital for purposes of the MTCA and is therefore entitled to venue in the county in which the principal offices of its governing body are located, i.e., Wayne County.

Section 11-46-1(i) does not define a sheriff’s department as a political subdivision; the county is the proper governmental defendant.

Brown v. Thompson · filed 2004-07-30(i)

In this case of first impression, we hold the Sheriff’s Department is not a political subdivision as defined in Section 11-46-1(i), and thus this suit was not properly filed under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act .

Section 11-46-1 includes school districts as governmental entities under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Pigford v. Jackson Public School Dist. · filed 2005-02-01(I)

School districts are included as governmental entities. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(I) (Rev.2002).

Section 11-46-1 defines “governmental entity” to include counties in Mississippi.

Ladner v. Stone County · filed 2006-01-17(g) and (i)

“Governmental entity” includes counties within the State. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(g) and (i) (Supp. 2004).

Section 11-46-1 treats a municipality such as the City of Jackson as a governmental entity under the MTCA.

Spencer v. CITY OF JACKSON, MISS. · filed 2007-07-31(g), (i)

The City of Jackson is considered a governmental entity for the purposes of the MTCA.

Section 11-46-1(i) does not define a sheriff's department as a political subdivision; the county is the proper governmental defendant.

Brown v. Thompson · filed 2006-03-02(i)

In this case of first impression, we hold the Sheriff's Department is not a political subdivision as defined in Section 11-46-1(i), and thus this suit was not properly filed under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Section 11-46-1(i) treats school districts as political subdivisions covered by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

A.B. Ex Rel. C.D. v. Stone County School District · filed 2009-07-28(i)

Because the school district is considered a political subdivision, A.B.'s claims were brought under the MTCA. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(i) (Supp.2008).

Section 11-46-1(i) excludes state agencies and their employees from the definition of political subdivisions.

MISSISSIPPI CRIME LABORATORY v. Douglas · filed 2011-09-22(i)

The Mississippi Crime Laboratories and the Mississippi State Medical Examiners Office, along with Dr. Hayne, do not fit the definition of “political subdivisions” set forth under this section.

Section 11-46-1(i) classifies a community hospital as a political subdivision under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Delta Regional Medical Center v. Green · filed 2009-02-10(i)

The parties do not dispute that DRMC is a “community hospital,”as it falls under the definition of “political subdivision” provided in Mississippi Code Section 11-46-1(i).

Section 11-46-1(i) treats a community hospital as a political subdivision separate from the county that owns it.

Tallahatchie General Hospital v. Howe · filed 2009-03-05(i)

As a community hospital located in Tallahatchie County, Mississippi, TGH is a “political subdivision” of the State.

Section 11-46-1(i)’s definition of political subdivision does not include a private corporation merely because it provides governmental services.

Flye v. Spotts · filed 2012-08-02(i)

So after reviewing the language at issue, we conclude that the term “body corporate,” either in isolation or as part of the phrase “body politic or body corporate” in the MTCA, does not include a private corporation.

Section 11-46-1(i) defines a political subdivision by its responsibility for governmental activities; an entity meeting that definition remains a political subdivision when it performs proprietary work.

Kelly v. Corinth Public Utilities Commission · filed 2016-01-19(i)

Under the MTCA, once it is established that the Department is “responsible for governmental activities,” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(i) (Supp. 2015), allegations that it “engaged in a proprietary activity” or “acted as a private entity” in a particular case are irrelevant.

An entity controlled by governmental entities can qualify as a political subdivision’s instrumentality under the Tort Claims Act.

Woodall v. AAA Ambulance Service · filed 2015-04-23(i)

We find it clear that governmental entities control AAA. The city, the county, and the hospital select the entire board of directors, and that board makes AAA’s strategic decisions. Forrest County General Hospital controls AAA’s day-to-day managers. So governmental entities entirely control both AAA’s big-picture and day-to-day decisions. ... We agree with the circuit judge that AAA is an instrumentality of governmental entities, and that it is entitled to Tort Claims Act protection.

Section 11-46-1(i) includes counties and community hospitals within the MTCA’s definition of political subdivision.

Forrest General Hospital v. Upton · filed 2018-04-19(i)

Forrest County, Mississippi, and FGH are “political subdivsion[s]” under the MTCA. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 41-13-10(c) (Rev. 2013), 11-46-1(i).

Section 11-46-1 includes school districts among political subdivisions, making their employees employees of governmental entities under the MTCA.

Cody Patterson and Corey Patterson, Individually and on Behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Johnny Patterson v · filed 2025-09-11(i)

Patterson was employed by the Lee County School District, which is a political subdivision. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(i) (Rev. 2019) (“‘Political subdivision’ means any body politic or body corporate other than the state responsible for governmental activities only in geographic areas smaller than that of the state, including . . . school district . . . .”). Being an employee of a government entity is the same as being either an employee of a political subdivision or of the state. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(f) (Rev. 2019).

Section 11-46-1(i) treats a community hospital as a political subdivision separate from the county that owns it.

Tallahatchie General Hospital v. Howe · filed 2010-12-09(i)

While Tallahatchie County owns TGH, as a "community hospital,” TGH is a "separate statutory entit[y]” from Tallahatchie County. See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 11 — 46—l(i) (Rev.2002) (a “community hospital" is designated as a "political subdivision" separate and apart from a county or municipality); 41-13-10(c) (Rev.2002) (defining "community hospital”).

A community hospital’s division is not a separate governmental entity under the MTCA; the community hospital is the entity that can receive notice.

April Holifield and Jeffery Holifield v. Highland Community Hospital · filed 2025-04-15(i)

Here, HCH and FGH are not the same entity, and FGH is the only governmental entity capable of notice under the MTCA; so the Holifields were attempting to add a new party to the complaint—a party that never received presuit notice under the MTCA.

Section 11-46-1(i) does not expressly recognize individual high schools as political subdivisions.

Mayer · filed 2025-11-04(i)

But high schools are not explicitly recognized as political subdivisions, see Miss. Code Ann. § 37-6-5; Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(i), and Mississippi law is clear on this point.

Section 11-46-1(i) classifies a community hospital as a political subdivision under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Delta Regional Medical Center v. Green · filed 2010-07-22(i)

Further, DRMC’s status as a political subdivision under Mississippi Code Section 11 — 46—l(i) tolled the statute of limitations for a period of 120 days after DRMC received the Notice of Claim from Green.

Under Section 11-46-1(f), courts weigh five factors to determine whether a state physician is an employee or an independent contractor for MTCA liability.

Miller v. Meeks · filed 2000-06-29(f)

Therefore, the test to determine the employment status of doctors like Dr. Meeks for the purposes of liability under the MTCA shall be to weigh the following factors: 1. the nature of the function performed by the employee; 2. the extent of the state's interest and involvement in the function; 3. the degree of control and direction exercised by the state over the employee; 4. whether the act complained of involved the use of judgment and discretion; 5. whether the physician receives compensation, either directly or indirectly, from the patient for professional services rendered.

Section 11-46-1(f) does not categorically exclude university medical center physicians from its definition of employee; their employment status depends on the facts.

SMITH EX REL. SELMON v. Braden · filed 2000-08-24(f)

Nevertheless, though it cannot be said that the § 11-46-1(f), on its face, excludes Dr. Braden from the protections of the MTCA, it can not be said there is no question of fact as to Dr. Braden's employment status.

Section 11-46-1(f) excludes independent contractors from the MTCA’s definition of employee; a UMMC faculty physician’s status is determined using the Miller five-part test.

Carter v. Harkey · filed 2000-12-21(f)

The MTCA defines "employee" as "any officer, employee or servant of the State of Mississippi or a political subdivision of the state" but specifically excludes from that definition an individual "acting in the capacity of an independent contractor." Id. § 11-46-1(f). ... The trial court did not have the benefit of this Court's decision in Miller, and, therefore, this Court remands the case so that the trial court may reconsider, based upon the Miller factors, whether Dr. Harkey was acting as an employee or independent contractor at the time of the alleged malpractice.

A physician’s status as a governmental employee under the MTCA depends on the substance of the physician’s relationship with the state hospital; the hospital’s disclaimer of liability does not change that status when it admits the physician is its employee.

Wright v. Quesnel · filed 2002-02-28

The Miller factors are more than sufficient to determine the status of physicians working for state hospitals, and that SPCH's disclaimer of liability for Dr. Quesnel's acts does not change the legal status of Dr. Quesnel, especially when SPCH has admitted that Dr. Quesnel was its employee.

Section 11-46-1(f) excludes independent contractors from the definition of state employees; determining a faculty physician’s status under that definition requires enough evidence to apply the Miller factors.

Davis v. Hoss · filed 2002-07-22(f)

The MTCA defines "employee" as "any officer, employee or servant of the State of Mississippi or a political subdivision of the state," but specifically excludes from that definition an individual "acting in the capacity of an independent contractor." Id. § 11-46-1(f). ... Under this precedent, the circuit judge erred in granting summary judgment to Doctors Doherty, Patel, Harrison, Hashimoto, and Kregor. A full and meaningful application of the Miller factors was not possible on the record before the circuit court.

Section 11-46-1(f) excludes independent contractors from the definition of state employee; determining a UMMC faculty physician’s status requires applying the Miller factors to a sufficiently developed record.

Davis v. Hoss · filed 2004-04-01(f)

The MTCA defines "employee" as "any officer, employee or servant of the State of Mississippi or a political subdivision of the state," but specifically excludes from that definition an individual "acting in the capacity of an independent contractor." ... To determine whether a faculty physician at UMMC is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of immunity under the MTCA, we consider the factors adopted in Miller v. Meeks, 762 So.2d 302, 310 (Miss.2000):(1) the nature of the function performed by the employee; (2) the extent of the state's interest and involvement in the function; (3) the degree of control and direction exercised by the state over the employee; (4) whether the act complained of involved the use of judgment and discretion; and (5) whether the physician received compensation, either directly or indirectly, from the patient for professional services rendered. ... A full and meaningful application of the Miller factors was not possible on the record before the circuit court.

Section 11-46-1(f) excludes independent contractors from the definition of employees, so the state cannot be sued for their tortious acts.

Brown v. DELTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2008-10-09(f)

Thus, while the state may be sued for the tortious acts of its employees, it may not be sued for the tortious acts of its independent contractors.

Section 11-46-1(f) treats a UMMC physician as a state employee when the Miller factors show that the physician acted as an employee rather than an independent contractor while treating the patient.

Meeks v. Miller · filed 2006-06-27(f)

After having weighed and applied all five Miller factors, we conclude that each factor weighs in favor of Dr. Meeks. Because we find that Dr. Meeks was an employee of UMMC and as a result a state employee, we hold that the trial court erred when it denied Dr. Meeks' summary judgment. As an employee of UMMC, Dr. Meeks is immune from liability.

A UMMC physician who treats a patient within the course and scope of his UMMC employment qualifies as a state employee for MTCA immunity.

Meeks v. Miller · filed 2007-05-24(f)

¶ 22. Based on the findings discussed above, we hold that Dr. Meeks was acting in the course and scope of his employment at UMMC when he treated Fox.

Section 11-46-1(f) includes uncompensated state personnel as employees and does not require a UMMC physician to belong to a departmental practice plan to qualify as a state employee.

Barksdale v. Carroll · filed 2006-08-29(f)

Section 11-46-1(f) specifically includes uncompensated officers, employees, or servants of the state in the definition of employee. Therefore, we find that membership in a departmental practice plan is not required for a UMMC physician to have state employee status under section 11-46-1(f).

Section 11-46-1(f) excludes independent contractors from the definition of “employee,” so a governmental entity cannot be sued under the MTCA for their torts.

Brown v. Delta Regional Medical Center · filed 2007-04-25(f)

Thus, while the state may be sued for the tortious acts of its employees, it may not be sued for the tortious acts of its independent contractors.

Section 11-46-1(f)'s definition of employee excludes an Alabama state trooper from Mississippi Tort Claims Act immunity.

Duckworth v. Warren · filed 2007-08-13(f)

The trial court analyzed the facts according to these factors; however, a negligence theory is appropriate in the case sub judice, since Alabama State Trooper Bart Walker has no immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-46-1(f), 11-46-7 (Rev. 2002).

Section 11-46-1(f) does not include an Alabama state trooper in its definition of employee, so he has no immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Duckworth v. Warren · filed 2009-05-28(f)

The trial court analyzed the facts according to these factors; however, a negligence theory is appropriate in the case sub judi-ce, since Alabama State Trooper Bart Walker has no immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 11-46-1 (f), 11-46-7 (Rev.2002).

Section 11-46-1(f) treats a city alderman as an employee for purposes of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Williams v. City of Belzoni · filed 2017-03-07(f)

As an alderman, Farmer is an “employee” of the city for purposes of the MTCA.

Section 11-46-1(f) includes an elected sheriff in the MTCA’s definition of “employee.”

Jenkins v. Rankin County, Mississippi · filed 2024-07-24(f)

Although he is an elected official, Sheriff Bailey is considered an “employee” under the MTCA.

Section 11-46-1(a) defines a claim as a demand for damages from a governmental entity for injuries; a request for documents does not qualify.

Tommy L. Ewing, Jr. v. Lisa Younger Neese · filed 2016-08-18(a)

Further, the Tort Claims Act applies to a “claim,” and Tommy’s request for documents does not fit the statutory definition of a claim. Mississippi Code Section 11-46-1 defines a claim as “any demand to recover damages from a governmental entity as compensation for injuries.”15 Tommy seeks documents, not damages.

Section 11-46-1 does not shield the State, its political subdivisions, or their employees from liability for constitutional violations.

McGehee v. DePoyster · filed 1996-09-04

We further note, Felder notwithstanding, that nothing in § 11-46-1 purports to insulate the State, its political subdivisions or any of its employees from liability for constitutional violations.

Section 11-46-1(f) does not categorically exclude university physicians from the Tort Claims Act’s definition of employee; their status depends on the facts.

Smith v. Braden · filed 1997-08-26(f)

Nevertheless, though it cannot be said that the § 11-46-1(f), on its face, excludes Dr. Braden from the protections of the MTCA, it can not be said there is no question of fact as to Dr. Braden's employment status.

Section 11-46-1(f) generally excludes independent contractors from the Tort Claims Act’s definition of employee.

Owens v. Thomae · filed 1997-12-11(f)

The Tort Claims Act, with a few enumerated exceptions, explicitly excludes independent contractors from its provisions.

Section 11-46-1(f) excludes independent contractors from the Mississippi Tort Claims Act’s protections.

Conley v. Warren · filed 1998-02-19(f)

If Warren acted as an independent contractor in the treatment of his patient, Conley, he is not entitled to the protection of the Tort Claims Act inasmuch as Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(f) explicitly excludes independent contractors from its provisions.

Section 11-46-1(f) does not strip a state-employed faculty physician of employee status merely because a state medical practice group pays part of the physician’s compensation.

Watts v. Tsang · filed 1998-08-04(f)

We find as a matter of law that Dr. Tsang cannot lose his status as a State employee, and the immunity that status affords, merely by receiving a portion of his compensation through UAS.

Section 11-46-1(f) excludes physicians acting as independent contractors from the definition of employee for Tort Claims Act immunity.

Bennett v. Sudhakar Madakasira, M.D. · filed 1998-12-21(f)

On the other hand, if the acts complained of were committed while the physician was acting as an independent contractor, no immunity is afforded.

Section 11-46-1(f) excludes independent contractors from the definition of employee for Mississippi Tort Claims Act protection.

Sheila Fox Miller v. W. Mark Meeks, M. D. · filed 1998-10-22(f)

Under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1(f) (Supp. 1999), if Dr. Meeks is found to be an independent contractor, he is not entitled to the protection of the MTCA.

Section 11-46-1(f) excludes independent contractors from the Tort Claims Act’s definition of employee, subject to enumerated exceptions.

Owens v. Thomae · filed 1999-09-02(f)

If Dr. Thomae is found to be an independent contractor, he is not entitled to the protections of the Tort Claims Act. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(f). The Tort Claims Act, with a few enumerated exceptions, explicitly excludes independent contractors from its provisions.

Section 11-46-1(f) excludes independent contractors from the MTCA definition of employee; a faculty physician’s status is determined using the five-part Miller test.

Carter v. H. Louis Harkey, M.D. · filed 2000-01-12(f)

The MTCA defines "employee" as "any officer, employee or servant of the State of Mississippi or a political subdivision of the state" but specifically excludes from that definition an individual "acting in the capacity of an independent contractor." Id. § 11-46-1(f). ... The trial court did not have the benefit of this Court's decision in Miller, and, therefore, this Court remands the case so that the trial court may reconsider, based upon the Miller factors, whether Dr. Harkey was acting as an employee or independent contractor at the time of the alleged malpractice.

Section 11-46-1(f) excludes independent contractors from protection under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

Conley v. Warren · filed 2001-02-15(f)

If Warren acted as an independent contractor in the treatment of his patient, Conley, he is not entitled to the protection of the Tort Claims Act inasmuch as Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(f) explicitly excludes independent contractors from its provisions.

Section 11-46-1(1) excludes independent contractors from the definition of employee, so a physician acting in that capacity does not receive MTCA immunity.

Bennett v. Madakasira · filed 2002-03-21(1)

On the other hand, if the acts complained of were committed while the physician was acting as an independent contractor, no immunity is afforded.