Background
Sandra Powell worked as an emergency-room charge nurse for Natchez Hospital while undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. After her oncologist advised that she should not work with COVID-19 patients, the hospital kept her in triage, where it said patients and Powell were masked and interactions were socially distanced. Powell contracted COVID-19 in November 2020 and died from related complications in January 2021.
The Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission approved the family’s claim for $185,000 in death benefits. Powell’s widower and four children then sued the hospital for wrongful death, alleging battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress and arguing that the hospital’s conduct fell within the intentional-tort exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity. The circuit court granted the hospital summary judgment without prejudice, finding no evidence that the hospital actually intended Powell to contract COVID-19.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the family failed to produce evidence that Natchez Hospital acted with an actual intent to injure Powell. Mississippi’s intentional-tort exception requires conduct designed to bring about the employee’s injury; negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, knowingly allowing hazardous conditions, or requiring dangerous work is insufficient.
The record showed no evidence that the hospital deliberately kept Powell in triage so she would contract COVID-19, denied her a requested transfer, concealed COVID-19 risks, or manufactured the danger. It instead showed that the hospital implemented protective protocols consistent with evolving guidance. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s rejection of the family’s waiver argument or its handling of their Rule 56(f) continuance request.
On the hospital’s cross-appeal, the court modified the judgment to dismiss the claims with prejudice. Because summary judgment adjudicates claims on the merits, the court explained, a grant of summary judgment without prejudice is internally inconsistent.
Key Takeaways
- Mississippi’s workers’ compensation exclusivity rule bars an employee’s tort claims unless the employer acted with an actual intent to cause injury.
- Knowledge of a workplace hazard—even coupled with negligence, recklessness, or a failure to provide a safer assignment—does not by itself establish actual intent to injure.
- A judgment granting summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits and therefore results in dismissal with prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the exceptionally narrow scope of Mississippi’s intentional-tort exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity, including for claims arising from workplace exposure to COVID-19. Plaintiffs must present evidence that the employer’s conduct was designed to produce the injury, not merely that the employer knew an injury was possible or even substantially certain.
The opinion also confirms that Mississippi trial courts should designate claims resolved through summary judgment as dismissed with prejudice.