Sheppard v. Delaware Department of Health and Social Services, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY LARON SHEPPARD, Individually and as Administrator of the ESTATE OF CAMELLIA N. WASHINGTON, and LARON SHEPPARD, Individually and as next friend of CAMERON SHEPPARD, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, DELAWARE DIVISION OF ALCOHOLISM, DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH, DELAWARE PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, VINCENT P. MECONI, RENATTA J. HENRY, MICHAEL TALMO, IVAN S. COHEN, M.D., D. BINGHAM PH.D., and GURJEET MAVI, M.D., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 03C-01-096-MMJ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Submitted : March 29, 2004 Decided: April 15, 2004 ORDER Upon Defendants Motion for Reargument DENIED 1. By Order dated December 18, 2003, the Court denied Defendants Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of sovereign immunity. The Court found that the non-moving parties had presented a reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof of gross negligence on the part of Defendants. The absence of gross negligence is required under 10 Del. C. § 4001 as a condition essential for the retention of sovereign immunity by the State of Delaware. Therefore, sovereign immunity is not available as a defense at this stage of the proceedings. Additionally, sovereign immunity is not a bar to Plaintiffs cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the circumstances presented. 2. Defendants filed a Motion for Reargument on December 30, 2003. Defendants requested that the Court reconsider denial of Defendants Motion to Dismiss in light of the Delaware Supreme Court s December 17, 2003 decision in Pauley v. Reinoehl.1 Defendants also wished to readdress the issue of the application of sovereign immunity to Section 1983 claims. 3. On January 14, 2004, the Court granted the Motion for Reargument for the sole purpose of consideration of Pauley. Although the parties included in their submissions upon reargument discussion of Section 1983 claims, those issues were fully considered by the Court upon Defendants Motion to Dismiss. 1 Del. Supr., No. 679, 2002 (Dec. 17, 2003). 2 Therefore, this decision is limited to the issue of whether the Delaware Supreme Court s recent decision is cause for this Court to alter its Order denying the Motion to Dismiss. 4. Plaintiffs have requested that the Court schedule oral argument on the Motion for Reargument. Oral argument is at the discretion of the Court. The parties written submissions are sufficient for the Court to reconsider the Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, oral argument is not necessary. 5. In Pauley, the Supreme Court considered whether by passing the State Tort Claims Act, the Delaware General Assembly intended to waive completely the State s sovereign immunity. The State had $1 million in insurance coverage available to the plaintiffs. The issue was whether sovereign immunity had been waived to permit recovery by plaintiffs from the State in excess of $1 million.2 6. The Supreme Court confirmed that sovereign immunity does not apply when public officials act with gross negligence.3 Nevertheless, the Court held that the General Assembly did not intend to waive sovereign immunity completely by enacting the State Insurance Program. The purpose of that 2 Id. at *1. 3 Id. at *2. 3 Program was to protect the public from wrongful actions of State officials and employees, by waiving the State s sovereign immunity up to the threshold of insurance coverage made available by the State. 4 7. For purposes of this Motion, it is undisputed that there is no State insurance coverage for the allegations in this case. Therefore, the ruling in Pauley is inapplicable and does not constitute a reason for this Court to alter its decision on the Motion to Dismiss. THEREFORE, upon consideration of Defendants Motion for Reargument of the Court s December 18, 2003 decision on Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Defendants Motion to Dismiss hereby is DENIED AS PREVIOUSLY ORDERED ON DECEMBER 18, 2004. IT IS SO ORDERED. __________________________________ The Honorable Mary M. Johnston oc: pc: Prothonotary Counsel of Record 4 Id. at *5. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
