patient. Hudspeth also found that Mitchell was “rude and unprofessional in [her] conversation” with the supervisor who had requested the examination. Mitchell admitted that she should have gone back to the cottage to check on the patient. Mitchell was advised of her rights, as a state employee, to appeal her termination, but she failed to do so. Instead, she waited several months and then sought workers’ compensation benefits. ¶29, Before the Commission, Mitchell expressly argued that her termination was unfair, and she implied that the stated reason for her firing was pretextual. She emphasized that her termination notice listed numerous disciplinary actions for excessive tardiness, unexcused absences, or errors or omissions in charting medications or ot 26 (¶ 1) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). The alleged unfairness, of a state employee’s
holding that an agencys decision to reach a settlement is nonreviewable holding that although physicians letter requesting an accommodation for disabled employee came after employers decision to terminate employer should have reconsidered the decision to terminate his employment holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable recognizing that an agencys decision to terminate an employee is presumed correct holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously