Tennessee Supreme Court Holds Court Can Consider Patient’s Competence To Sign Power of Attorney

 

The Tennessee Supreme Court today rejected a Memphis nursing home’s argument that the trial court could not consider whether a resident with Down syndrome was competent to authorize his brother to act as his agent.  The nursing home sought to enforce an arbitration agreement signed on the resident’s behalf by the brother.  The Supreme Court held the trial court correctly considered evidence that the resident did not have the mental capacity to understand the document that authorized his brother to sign the agreement.

David Welch was diagnosed with Down syndrome shortly after birth.  David had no formal education; he could not read and had difficulty understanding and following instructions.  In 2012, James filled out a healthcare power-of-attorney form for David, giving James authority to act as David’s health care agent.  David “scratched his name” on the form, and James used it for several years to help David obtain health care.   

In 2016, James brought David to Christian Care Center of Memphis, a nursing home, to admit David as a resident.  James showed Christian Care his signed power-of-attorney and signed all of the admission paperwork, including an optional arbitration agreement.  The agreement waived David’s right to a jury trial and agreed to arbitrate any disputes with Christian Care.  At the time, the nursing home understood that David had Down syndrome.

David lived at Christian Care for a number of months.  He died in 2017, at the age of 62. 

In 2018, James, as administrator of David’s estate, filed this health care liability lawsuit against Christian Care, arising out of its care while David was a resident.  Christian Care filed a motion to compel arbitration under the agreement James signed on David’s behalf.  The trial court found that David did not have the mental capacity to sign the power-of-attorney naming James as his agent, so it denied Christian Care’s motion to compel arbitration.

Christian Care appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed.  The Court of Appeals held that, under a Tennessee law, Christian Care could rely on the power-of-attorney form David signed.  It held that the trial court should not have considered evidence on whether David was mentally competent to sign it, and therefore should have granted Christian Care’s motion to compel arbitration.  The Tennessee Supreme Court then granted James’s request for permission to appeal.

The Tennessee Supreme Court noted that the Tennessee statute Christian Care cited protects health care providers from liability if they “rely” in good faith on an agent’s health care decision for a patient.  In this case, the arbitration agreement James signed was optional; Christian Care would have admitted David to the facility even if James had refused to sign it.  As a result, the Court said, Christian Care could not show it “relied” on James’s decision to sign the arbitration agreement— Christian Care did not do anything different based on the arbitration agreement.  The Court held that the Tennessee law cited by Christian Care did not prevent the trial court from considering evidence on whether David had the mental capacity to designate James as his lawful agent.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny Christian Care’s motion to compel arbitration.   

To read the Court’s opinion in James A. Welch et al. v. Oaktree Health and Rehabilitation Center LLC D/B/A Christian Care Centers of Memphis et al., authored by Justice Holly Kirby, go to the opinions section of TNCourts.gov

Definition of Minor Changing in Mississippi

 A recent amendment to Miss. Code Ann. §1-3-27, which took effect July 1, 2023, clarified the definition of a minor with the following language: The term “minor,” when used in statute, except as otherwise provided by law shall include any person, male or female, under twenty-one (21) years of age. If a statute refers to the ability to enter into a contract affecting personal property or real property, “minor” shall mean any person, male or female, under eighteen (18) years of age.  No more chancery approval is necessary for worker's compensation settlements for minors who are 18 years or older either under a new memo from the Comp Commission.

Family Cemetery in Mississippi

 Families often hold a deep connection to their roots, and one way to honor this connection is by establishing a family cemetery. In Mississippi, a state steeped in history and tradition, the process of obtaining a family cemetery is governed by specific regulations and requirements. This article aims to provide insight into the key prerequisites for establishing a family cemetery in Mississippi.

Mississippi's rich history is reflected in its diverse cultural heritage and the importance placed on ancestral ties. Establishing a family cemetery can be a way to pay homage to this heritage, preserving family legacies and connections for generations to come. However, it's crucial to be aware of the legal and practical requirements involved in the process.

Understanding Mississippi's Regulations

To establish a family cemetery in Mississippi, several legal considerations must be taken into account:

1. Land Ownership: The land on which the family cemetery is to be established must be owned by the family or designated for cemetery use. Ownership documentation, such as deeds and surveys, may need to be submitted as part of the application process.
2. County Regulations: While there is no statewide regulatory body governing family cemeteries, each county may have its own ordinances and regulations. It's essential to research and adhere to local guidelines to ensure compliance.    Additionally, there are also statutory requirements for approval by the County Board of Supervisors.  
3. Zoning Restrictions: The chosen property must comply with local zoning ordinances. Some areas may have specific zones designated for cemetery use. Checking with the local zoning authority can help determine the suitability of the chosen land.
4. Permits and Approvals: Depending on the location, size, and other factors, obtaining various permits and approvals may be necessary. These could include permits related to land use, environmental impact, and even historic preservation in cases where the property holds cultural significance.
5. Recording and Documentation: Formal documentation outlining the establishment of the family cemetery may need to be recorded with the county or state. This documentation could detail the intent to establish a cemetery, access rights, and maintenance responsibilities.

Family cemeteries offer a unique opportunity to preserve family histories and legacies. Beyond the legal requirements, families may consider additional steps to ensure the longevity and significance of the cemetery:

1. Maintenance Plans: Developing a clear plan for the ongoing maintenance of the cemetery is vital. This may involve outlining responsibilities for regular upkeep, landscaping, and repairs.
2. Access and Conservation: Ensuring ongoing access to the cemetery site and taking measures to conserve its historical and cultural significance can help maintain the connection between past and present.
3. Inclusion of Loved Ones: Engaging all family members in the decision-making process can help strengthen the sense of shared responsibility and emotional connection to the cemetery.

Conclusion

Establishing a family cemetery in Mississippi is a meaningful way to honor family heritage and preserve historical ties. By understanding and adhering to the legal requirements, as well as considering additional measures to ensure its longevity, families can create a lasting tribute that resonates through generations. As always, seeking legal counsel and guidance from local authorities can help navigate the intricacies of the process and pave the way for a respectful and enduring family cemetery.

 

Fugitive Dismissal Rule

On August 8, 2023, the Mississippi Court of Appeals decided Gillen v. Gillen, 2021-CA-00837-COA.   This case involves Gregory Gillen who was found in contempt of court for failing to deposit $1,000,000 into the court's registry as ordered. Despite various motions and appeals, the court maintained its decision. Gillen's absence from the court's jurisdiction led to the dismissal of his appeal under the "fugitive dismissal rule". His claims were either waived or found without merit [6, 7, 8, 9]. The fugitive dismissal rule allows a Court to dismiss an appeal where the other party flees the jurisdiction and refuses to participate in the case.

Covid 19 and Worker's Compensation in Mississippi

 In the ever-evolving landscape of workers' compensation claims, a recent legal case has shed light on the critical importance of medical proof in establishing compensability. The case of West v. The Nichols Center, 2021-WC-01403-COA located here, has not only ignited conversations within legal circles but has also raised pertinent questions about the nature of compensable injuries, specifically in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The West v. The Nichols Center case revolves around a nurse who contracted COVID-19 while treating COVID-positive patients. Following her diagnosis, she developed a severe blood clot, which led to a series of legal proceedings to determine whether her condition qualified for workers' compensation benefits. The central issue hinged on whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a direct link between her COVID diagnosis and her work environment.

In a unanimous decision (10-0), the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the initial finding that the nurse's COVID diagnosis and subsequent complications were not compensable. The crux of the decision lay in the absence of both lay and medical proof that the nurse had contracted the virus while on the job. While the nurse's exposure to COVID-positive patients was evident, the lack of concrete evidence connecting her contraction of the virus to her workplace was a pivotal factor in the ruling.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the crucial role that medical proof plays in determining the compensability of workplace injuries. For legal professionals and stakeholders involved in workers' compensation claims, the case of West v. The Nichols Center underscores the significance of establishing a clear and substantiated connection between a medical condition and the work environment.

Many had anticipated a robust discussion regarding whether COVID-19 qualified as an "accidental injury" or an "occupational disease" within the statutory framework. However, the case took an unexpected turn. A footnote in the ruling provides insightful clarity as to why this anticipated discourse did not materialize. Rather than delving into the categorization of COVID-19, the focus remained on the foundational element of medical proof. The absence of such proof ultimately steered the case's trajectory.

The West v. The Nichols Center case serves as a watershed moment for the realm of workers' compensation claims, prompting a deeper examination of the necessity of medical proof in establishing compensability. As legal practitioners and professionals navigate the complexities of workplace injuries, this case highlights the pivotal role that evidence-based connections between medical conditions and work environments play in shaping the outcomes of claims. In an era defined by the global pandemic, where the boundaries between work and health have become increasingly intertwined, the lessons gleaned from this case resonate powerfully, guiding future discussions and decisions in the intricate domain of workers' compensation.