CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals partially reversed a lower court ruling involving the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services.
In April 2022, the Kanawha Circuit Court addressed a case involving A.R.'s allegations of negligence against the DHHS, among others, according to a March 5 opinion
Justice Beth Walker authored the majority opinion. Justice Haley Bunn recused herself from the case and Judge H. Charles Carl III was sitting temporarily on the case.
A.R. claimed she suffered injuries due to negligence, including sexual assault, by a Child Protective Services worker named Dustin Kinser.
The court initially dismissed some of A.R.'s claims against the DHHS for failure to serve pre-suit notice. A second lawsuit against the DHHS was then filed, which was later consolidated with the first.
In January 2022, A.R. filed an eight-count amended complaint, with seven counts against the DHHS, including negligence and negligent hiring/supervision.
The DHHS moved to strike parts of the amended complaint and dismiss others, particularly asserting qualified immunity from A.R.'s negligence claims.
The DHHS argued that its actions, such as hiring and supervision, were discretionary functions and therefore immune from negligence claims unless they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws.
A.R. contended that the DHHS failed to meet its obligations under various laws and policies, making its immunity defense inappropriate for dismissal.
Walker wrote that to establish a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant breached a duty owed and A.R.'s claims against the DHHS included negligence in violating the Child Welfare Act and negligent hiring/supervision.
"In view of the Department’s qualified immunity defense, both claims are problematically pleaded," Walker wrote in the opinion. "Count VII is pleaded as a negligence claim. As discussed below, the Department is immune from claims of mere negligence arising from discretionary, governmental functions including hiring, training, and supervision."
As to Count VI, Walker wrote, the court did not see that A.R. had alleged how the DHHS, not Kinser, had violated the Child Welfare Act.
"So, we are left to infer that when it comes to the Department, A.R.’s theory of liability is that the Department’s hiring, training, and supervision of Kinser and others violated the Child Welfare Act and related policies," Walker wrote.
A.R. alleged the DHHS failed to hire, train and supervise Kinser properly, which, according to previous rulings, fell under discretionary governmental functions.
Since no insurance contract waived immunity and the Tort Claims Act did not apply, the court moved to the next step: whether A.R. showed the DHHS's actions violated clearly established rights or laws.
A.R. referenced various laws and policies, such as the Child Protective Services Policy and the Human Rights Act, claiming the DHHS violated them.
However, the court found these references too broad and insufficient to determine a violation of clearly established rights.
A.R. also mentioned the West Virginia Constitution and the Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workplace Policy, but the court found her arguments lacking specifics to establish a violation.
Consequently, the court concluded that A.R.'s claims failed to overcome the DHHS's qualified immunity defense.
The court reversed the circuit court's decision to deny the DHHS's motion to dismiss Counts VI and VII of the amended complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court's decision hinged on the insufficiency of A.R.'s claims to specify how the DHHS's actions, not just Kinser's, violated clearly established rights, as required to overcome qualified immunity.
"For the reasons discussed above, that part of the circuit court’s order entered April 20, 2022, denying the Department’s motion to dismiss Counts VI and VII of the amended complaint is reversed," Walker wrote. "This case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion."
Attorneys for the parties declined to comment.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 22-0389