JAMES-VANSANDT v. PASSMORE

JAMES-VANSANDT v. PASSMORE
2020 OK CIV APP 28
Case Number: 117955
Decided: 08/16/2019
Mandate Issued: 06/17/2020
DIVISION I
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I

MANDEE JAMES-VANSANDT, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
SARAH PASSMORE, Defendant/Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
ROGERS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

HONORABLE SHEILA A. CONDREN, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Brendan M. McHugh, Dana Jim, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant,

W. Joseph Pickard, Lauren M. Metzger, SWEET LAW FIRM, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee.

Kenneth L. Buettner, Judge:

¶1 Plaintiff/Appellant Mandee Vansandt (Mother) appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee Sarah Passmore (Dr. Passmore).1 Following a criminal trial for child neglect in which Mother was adjudicated not guilty, and to which Dr. Passmore contributed as an examining physician for the minor child, T.J. (Child), Mother brought a civil suit against Dr. Passmore for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Determining that Dr. Passmore was statutorily presumed immune from civil suit for her reporting of potential child abuse, the trial court held that Mother failed to overcome the presumption. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Passmore. Mother appeals. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.

¶2 Child was born August 14, 2012. On January 11, 2013, Child was admitted to Saint Francis Hospital with a bulging fontanel and reported episodes of brachycardia. Upon examination, it was determined that Child had a subdural hematoma and several broken bones. Suspecting possible child abuse, the Saint Francis physicians requested that Dr. Passmore examine Child to determine whether signs of child neglect were present. After examining Child, reviewing Child's medical records, and speaking with Child's parents, Dr. Passmore determined that Child's injuries could not have been caused by the explanations given by the parents and that Child's injuries were likely a result of abusive head trauma. A social worker at Saint Francis Hospital alerted DHS and law enforcement. A police investigation resulted in the arrest and charging of Child's parents for child neglect.

¶3 Following a criminal trial in early 2014, a jury adjudicated both parents not guilty on charges for child neglect. The parents filed this action against Dr. Passmore August 7, 2014, alleging malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case was removed to federal court November 2, 2015. Determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the federal district court remanded the case to state court September 20, 2016. The father of Child voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice May 7, 2018. Dr. Passmore moved for summary judgment against Mother July 2, 2018. Following a hearing on the motion on October 10, 2018, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Passmore December 6, 2018. In so ruling, the trial court held that Mother had not overcome the presumption of good faith and had failed to present evidence of malice. Mother moved for reconsideration. The trial court granted Mother's motion for reconsideration as to her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but ultimately sustained summary judgment in favor of Dr. Passmore April 4, 2019. Mother appeals.

¶4 A trial court should grant summary judgment where there is no dispute as to a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wood v. Mercedes-Benz of Okla. City, 2014 OK 68, ¶ 4, 336 P.3d 457. The trial court should view all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. Summary judgment is not appropriate where reasonable persons might reach different conclusions based upon the undisputed evidence. Id. In attempting to show the existence of a question that must be tried, the party may not rely on bald contentions that facts exist to defeat the motion." Okla. Dep't of Sec. ex rel. Faught v. Wilcox, 2011 OK 82, ¶ 19, 267 P.3d 106 (citing Roberson v. Waltner, 2005 OK CIV APP 15¶ 8, 108 P.3d 567). The standard of review for a grant of summary judgment is de novo. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, ¶ 2, 914 P.2d 1051. "Under the de novo standard, this Court is afforded 'plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to examine the issues presented.'" Wood, 2014 OK 68, ¶ 4, 336 P.3d 457 (citing Harmon v. Cradduck, 2012 OK 80, ¶ 10, 286 P.3d 643).

¶5 On appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because a substantial issue as to a material fact remained regarding Dr. Passmore's good faith in reporting the potential abuse of Child.2 Below, the trial court determined that Dr. Passmore was statutorily immune from civil suit for her reporting of suspected abuse of Child. Under 10 O.S. 2011 § 1-2-104, "Any person who, in good faith and exercising due care, reports suspected child abuse or neglect, or who allows access to a child by persons authorized to investigate a report concerning the child shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed." Good faith is presumed under the statute. Id.

¶6 In Myers v. Lashley, 2002 OK 14, 44 P.3d 553, the Oklahoma Supreme Court explained the policy rationale behind § 1-2-104:

Oklahoma's child abuse reporting laws express the State's strong public interest in protecting children from abuse by the policy of mandatory reporting of actual and suspected child abuse or neglect to appropriate authorities and agencies. The statutory scheme imposes upon all health care professionals (teachers as well as all other persons) an obligation to report in good faith all suspected instances of child abuse to [DHS]. No privilege or contract will relieve any person from the legally mandated reporting requirement.

Id. ¶ 11 (footnotes omitted). With the protection of children being the priority, this Court is reluctant to chip away at the protections afforded to those care givers who suspect and report abuse in good faith. Kremeier v. Transitions, Inc., 2015 OK CIV APP 18, ¶ 17, 345 P.3d 1126. In order to have immunity from suit, a person reporting child abuse need only have "knowledge sufficient to support a good faith report of suspected abuse--which may, of course, be based on circumstantial factors indicating that . . . abuse is reasonably likely and potential . . . ." Id.

¶7 In alleging Dr. Passmore did not act in good faith in reporting the potential abuse of Child, Mother asserts that Dr. Passmore changed her diagnosis and generally "jumped to the conclusion [that Child was abused]." Specifically, Mother alleges that Dr. Passmore first concluded that Child suffered from shaken baby syndrome, but that she then changed her diagnosis to abusive head trauma. However, Mother did not present any evidence in support of this contention. In fact, Dr. Passmore's report indicates the opposite--that Dr. Passmore was consistent in her diagnosis of abusive head trauma. Mother further alleges that Dr. Passmore recklessly ignored other possible diagnoses, such as metabolic bone disease--the diagnosis supported by Mother's expert witness during the criminal trial. But as indicated in her official report, Dr. Passmore inquired into whether Child had a family history of easy bruising or bone softening diseases and was told there was none.

¶8 Mother has not presented evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of Dr. Passmore's good faith in reporting suspected abuse of Child. Though medical opinions regarding T.J.'s injuries may differ, Mother has not presented evidence indicating Dr. Passmore acted in bad faith in concluding that the injuries were consistent with abusive head trauma. As demonstrated by Dr. Passmore's report, there is evidence that she had at least "knowledge sufficient to support a good faith report of suspected abuse." Absent evidence other than Mother's bald assertions that she acted in bad faith, Dr. Passmore was entitled to the statutorily granted immunity for a person reporting suspected child abuse to the proper authorities. According to the evidence in the record, Dr. Passmore acted upon her best judgment and medical opinion. Though a jury ultimately determined there was not evidence sufficient to support the conviction of Child's parents for neglect, we will not disincentivize care givers from reporting suspected child abuse by waiving their statutory immunity absent sufficient evidence overcoming the presumption of good faith. We therefore find that there was no controversy as to a material fact and that Dr. Passmore was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

¶9 AFFIRMED.

GOREE, C.J., and JOPLIN, P.J., concur.

FOOTNOTES

1 The father, Clarence James Vansandt, was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice from this action May 7, 2018.

2 Mother's additional issues on appeal, including that the trial court erred by denying Mother the opportunity to amend her petition to add a negligence claim, are rendered moot if Dr. Passmore is deemed statutorily immune from suit. Because we conclude Dr. Passmore is immune, as explained below, we do not take up Mother's additional issues on appeal.