Archived Story

Public deserves NRMC details

Published 12:02am Friday, November 30, 2012

The Natchez Regional Medical Center board of trustees wants you to think of the hospital they manage as your own.

They want it to be your first choice for health care, your first call in time of emergency and the community partner that you love and appreciate.

And they’re right. You should think of NRMC in all those ways, because, after all, it is yours. The county-owned hospital belongs to the taxpayers, and that would be crystal clear if the business defaulted on its debt.

Taxes would go up, and the county would have to foot the bill for a multi-million facility.

So, it’s yours, but don’t ask too many questions, especially if your questions center on the amount of money the hospital received this week through the settlement of a lawsuit.

That information is confidential.

Why? We don’t know. The hospital has long argued that divulging financial details in a competitive market — there’s another hospital just down the road — would be harmful to the business.

But how could it hurt for your competition to know you’ve suddenly come into a great sum of money? It seems like the intimidation factor might actually improve the competitive edge a bit.

The details of the settlement closing a rollercoaster case that took the hospital’s employees, patients and community on a wild ride for the greater part of a decade should be shared with the elected leaders who represent the public and with the public as a whole.

If trustees want the public to feel a connection and provide support, the hospital’s doors must open both ways.

 

Print Article
  • Anonymous

    Can we guess that the settlement was a LOT less than reasonable? I am very surprised that the Hosp. board can act this independently on financial issues of this magnitude, without at least briefing the BOS. This looks a lot like the street sweeper authorizing overlay of all the streets without any other authorizations. My opinion is that the windfall should be distributed according to BOS input, preferably most of it to reduce the debt.

  • Khakirat

    The legal rightful thing that should be done is as the oldsouthgent comment for this isn’t the Hosp. boards, attorney W. Brown, or Hospital Adm. money for this is mine, yours, and simply the property taxpayers of Adams county!! I , as a county taxpayer don’t want any secrets and I challenge the ND to contact Mr. Hood our state Attorney General on this to let the general public know the facts of!! Also, with the Attorney General about the sell of city property to the Worley family with out advertising in the ND to put on bid to the general public as the Mayor and Alderman want to do seems onesided not legal!!!??

  • Anonymous

    Khaki, I agree with you,!
    But, if you knew how much they received then you would want to know how they spent it.
    But hey, at least soon when you have to visit the hospital you can ride around in the parking lot without worrying about knocking a tire off or scraping your oilpan.
    I think a county resident should hire an attorney to look into all these secret matters going on. At least tie their shenanigans up in court.

  • Anonymous

    This all was done in a court of law. The judge usually insists on there being a settlement. The terms of the settlement are often read so as not to disclose any wrong doing. Talk to the judge.

  • Anonymous

    Your comment is confusing. Yes, judges normally do like to see a settlement and ask the attorneys if they have attempted to negotiate a settlement during pre-trial hearings, thus encouraging them to do so. Settlement negotiations are then conducted outside the court with plenty of time for the plaintiff’s (hospital) attorneys to meet with the hospital board and to brief the BOS on the ifs and ands of settlement and any offers from the other side, thus the BOS would be in the know. IF there is no agreement prior to trial, the judge may suggest mediation/arbitration with a third party acting as moderator, then ultimately going to trial if no agreement is resolved. Your statement that the terms are read so as not do disclose any wrong doing probably should read “the terms are often read so as not to hide any wrong doing”. As written, it seems the judge would be complicit in hiding wrong doing if the settlement were read in the manner you suggested (not to disclose any wrong doing). And, of course, there are many cases where the judge seals the file to avoid public knowledge of the outcome, which may occur in competitive business situations or similar circumstances. I have not read where the judge sealed this file, and since this is a public entity, there should be no reason the terms of the settlement were/are not disclosed to the public and rationale why the BOS was kept out of the loop. As I said earlier, the street sweeper operator can’t authorize paving streets, so why can the hospital board act this autonomously?

  • Anonymous

    11/07/2012 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable David C. Bramlette, III: Telephone Conference held on 11/7/2012. (dtj) (Entered: 11/08/2012)11/08/2012 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Roper: Settlement Conference held on 11/7/2012. A representative from Chartis/Lexington reported that there was no determination as to their settlement evaluation at this time. An additional conference will be held on Tuesday,November 13,2012 at 1:00PM. (Nicaud, Jenny) (Entered: 11/08/2012)11/08/2012 Set/Reset Hearings: telephonic Conference set for 11/13/2012 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge John M. Roper. Chartis/Lexington to initiate the conference call with the Court’s Gulfport,Ms. Chambers. (Nicaud, Jenny) (Entered: 11/08/2012)11/13/2012 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Roper: Settlement Conference held on 11/13/2012. The Court held a conference with defendant’s insurer. (Nicaud, Jenny) (Entered: 11/13/2012)11/16/2012137 MOTION for Edward M. Buxbaum to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Natchez Regional Medical Center (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollingsworth, Kelly) (Entered: 11/16/2012)11/19/2012 Pro Hac Vice fee paid by (Edward M. Buxbaum) $ 100, receipt number 34643018901. (EJS) (Entered: 11/19/2012)11/19/2012 TEXT ORDER ONLY granting 137 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court finds that the motion of Edward Buxbaum to appear pro hac vice on behalf of the Plaintiff should be granted in association with local counsel, upon payment of the appropriate fee and registration for electronic filing as required by this Court. No further written order shall be issued by this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Roper on November 19,2012 (Nicaud, Jenny) (Entered: 11/19/2012)11/19/2012 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable David C. Bramlette, III: Telephone Conference held on 11/19/2012. Participating were Kelly Hollingsworth for the Plaintiff and John Macklem and Richard Smith for the Defense. (dtj) (Entered: 11/20/2012)11/26/2012138 Subpoena Returned Executed as to Quorum Health Resources. (Hollingsworth, Kelly) (Entered: 11/26/2012)11/27/2012 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable David C. Bramlette, III in Natchez, MS: Settlement Conference held on 11/27/2012. Case settled. (Court Reporter Cherie Bond (601-608-4186)) (dtj) (Entered: 11/27/2012)11/28/2012139 MEMORANDUM OF CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (PKM) (Entered: 11/28/2012)

  • Anonymous

    This is just another slap in the face to taxpayers. This kind of crap happened several years ago when NRMC fired Radiology Assc. of Natchez after 50 YEARS OF SERVICE. Radiology Assc. of Natchez costs the taxpayers not the hospital one red cent!!! But NRMC thought it would be better to hire an inhouse radiologist for $50,000.00 a year for no reason at all. Did the taxpayer hear about that?? NO!!!! They waste our money on a daily basis with noone looking over their shoulder.It’s a joke. It is the BOS job the oversee the hospital. When I spoke with them about the above referenced incident, their answer was…”we don’t oversee the daily operations”… duh,,,, that’s their job. Consequently, about 1/2 million dollars in revenue annually was lost, revenue that would have turned over at least 4 times in Natchez. So sad and pitiful.

  • Anonymous

    The terms of the settlement should be disclosed to the OWNERS of the facility. I believe that would be THE TAXPAYERS of Adams County.

  • Anonymous

    We know from October 24, 2012 when the ND reported that there was no settlement in the case worth $46 million held in front of US Magistrate Judge John Roper for the U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Western). The judge then ordered Quorum to come up with an offer by Nov. 2 and there would be another conference on Nov. 7th if that offer was viable. I looked up the docket for this case on Pacer (CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:09-cv-00207-DCB-JMR). Since November 7th there have been five (5) settlement conferences with either US Magistrate Judge John Roper or US Senior Judge David Bramlette. Finally on 11/27/2012:

    11/27/2012 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable David C. Bramlette, III in Natchez, MS: Settlement Conference held on 11/27/2012. Case settled. (Court Reporter Cherie Bond (601-608-4186)) (dtj) (Entered: 11/27/2012)

    11/28/2012 — 139 — MEMORANDUM OF CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (PKM) (Entered: 11/28/2012)

    So, all of these conspiracy theories are moot. There were 139 docket entries of motions going back and forth over 3 years of a very very busy docket. There were six (6) lawyers working on each side. There were roughly 30 depositions taken. If you want to find out what happened, you’re going to have to ask the judge to unseal it or wait for the information to get leaked on the street. Period.

  • Anonymous

    Attorney General Jim Hood was involved in a lawsuit with State Farm on behalf of the State of Mississippi, here in Natchez’s US District Court, Southern District, Western Division with Senior Judge David Bramlette. Guess what? They came to a confidential settlement.

  • Anonymous

    You know this settlement was done in court right?

  • Khakirat

    I bet if all taxpayers call their BOS on the phone and demand to know the facts I bet you we will find out!!! This is nothing but public knowledge and the taxpayer demands action!!

  • Anonymous

    If anyone publicly discloses a confidential settlement, he/she could face contempt of court and fined a whole lot of money.

Editor's Picks