Tillmon v. Miss. State Dept. of Health

16 Citing cases

  1. Shird v. Mississippi State Department of Mental Health

    785 So. 2d 275 (Miss. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    The applicable standard of review may be found in Tillmon v.Miss. State Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1020-21 (Miss. 1999): This Court generally accords great deference to the agency's interpretation of its own rules and statutes which govern its operation.

  2. Electronic Data Sys. v. Ms. Medicaid

    2001 CA 1941 (Miss. 2003)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that "when there is not a statutory plan for appeal from a state board or agency's decision and the aggrieved party does not have an adequate remedy at law, jurisdiction to review of the board or agency's decision lies with the chancery court"

    ¶ 30. The standard of review on a decision of an administrative agency by an appellate court is found in Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep't ofHealth, 749 So.2d 1017 (Miss. 1999): This court generally accords great deference to the agency's interpretation of its own rules and statutes which govern its operation.

  3. Miss. Bureau of Narcotics v. Stacy

    817 So. 2d 523 (Miss. 2002)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that there was substantial evidence to support the good-cause termination of an employee after an altercation with his in-laws that resulted in a conviction for simple assault

    ¶ 17. The standard of review on a decision of the Employee Appeals Board by a circuit court is found in Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep'tof Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1020-21(Miss. 1999): This court generally accords great deference to the agency's interpretation of its own rules and statutes which govern its operation.

  4. Miss. Emp. Sec. Comm. v. Culbertson

    2000 C.C. 1033 (Miss. 2002)

    This issue was brought to this Court in a 1999 case, but it was not decided because the State failed to cross-appeal the award of attorneys' fees. Tillmon v. Mississippi Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1018 (Miss. 1999). However, the award of attorneys' fees by the EAB in Tillmon was allowed to stand because of a procedural bar.

  5. Moran Hauling Inc. v. Dep't of Fin. & Admin.

    105 So. 3d 1126 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    When reviewing an administrative agency's decision, this Court is limited in its review and will only determine “whether or not the order of the administrative agency (1) was unsupported by substantial evidence, (2) was arbitrary or capricious, (3) was beyond the power of administrative agency to make, or (4) violated some statutory or constitutional right of the complaining party.” Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1021 (¶ 15) (Miss.1999). “Substantial evidence means something more than a ‘mere scintilla’ or suspicion.” Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Marquez, 774 So.2d 421, 425 (¶ 13) (Miss.2000).

  6. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc. v. Corley

    191 F. Supp. 3d 646 (S.D. Miss. 2016)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the bad faith exception applies where a state commences the action

    See Wightman, 84 F.3d at 190 (finding that federal plaintiff would be able to raise his constitutional and procedural claims in the state investigatory hearing and in subsequent appeals where no state agency rules or statutes either prevented him from presenting or a panel or court from considering his constitutional claims); Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Miss. Div. of Medicaid, 853 So.2d 1192, 1211 (Miss. 2003) (holding that "when there is not a statutory plan for appeal from a state board or agency's decision and the aggrieved party does not have an adequate remedy at law, jurisdiction to review of [sic] the board or agency's decision lies with the chancery court") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Tillmon v. Mississippi State Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1020–21 (Miss. 1999) (explaining that issues proper for consideration on appeal from administrative agency include whether there was a violation of some statutory or constitutional right of the complaining party). All American argues in response that it cannot possibly know whether it will have an adequate opportunity to raise its constitutional challenges in the state proceedings since the Department has failed to promulgate any rules or regulations for the conduct of its hearings.

  7. Miss. High Sch. Activities Ass'n, Inc. v. Hattiesburg High Sch.

    178 So. 3d 1208 (Miss. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    This Court will affirm an administrative agency's decision unless it “(1) was unsupported by substantial evidence, (2) was arbitrary and capricious, (3) was beyond the power of administrative agency to make, or (4) violated some statutory or constitutional right of the complaining party.” Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Miss. Div. of Medicaid, 853 So.2d 1192, 1202 (Miss.2003) (quoting Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1021 (Miss.1999)). I observe that a decision that is arbitrary and capricious is necessarily unsupported by substantial evidence.

  8. Mi. Meth. v. Mi. Div. of Med

    2008 CA 1558 (Miss. 2009)   Cited 67 times

    "[A]n agency's rule-making power does not extend to the adoption of regulations which are inconsistent with actual statutes." Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1023 (Miss. 1999) (citing State ex rel. Pittman v. Miss. Public Serv. Comm'n, 538 So.2d 367, 373 (Miss. 1989)).

  9. Miss. Dept. of Human Services v. McNeel

    10 So. 3d 444 (Miss. 2009)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that a "party must make a proper demand for the interest in the pleadings" in order to be awarded prejudgment interest

    See Miss. Empl. Sec. Comm'n v. Culbertson, 832 So.2d 519, 529-30 (Miss. 2002) ("the EAB clearly had the authority to award promotions and back pay"); Shird v. Miss. State Dep't of Health, 785 So.2d 275, 279 (Miss. 2001) ("[t]he Court of Appeals erred in not reversing and remanding this case to the EAB with directions to declare two vacancies at the Psychologist I position . . . so that Cummins and Shird may properly be considered for the positions under the rules of the State Personnel Board"); Tillmon v. Miss. State Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1022 (Miss. 1999) ("[b]y the plain reading of [Mississippi Code Annotated Section 25-9-131[]], it is easily inferred that the EAB has the authority to declare the position vacant"). Therefore, this Court agrees with the circuit court that "this issue should be remanded back to the EAB for clarification of" what pay increase(s) and/or advancement(s) were offered and granted to DHS-Social Workers similarly situated to McNeel but for her termination, and determine what, if any, pay increase(s) and/or advancement(s) McNeel would have been entitled to receive.

  10. Miss. Employ. Sec. Comm. v. Culbertson

    832 So. 2d 519 (Miss. 2002)   Cited 7 times
    Reversing a trial court's award of attorney's fees, where the trial court failed to "make any independent analysis as required under the Litigation Accountability Act."

    This issue was brought to this Court in a 1999 case, but it was not decided because the State failed to cross-appeal the award of attorneys' fees. Tillmon v. Miss. Dep't of Health, 749 So.2d 1017, 1018 (Miss. 1999). However, the award of attorneys' fees by the EAB in Tillmon was allowed to stand because of a procedural bar.