Becker v. Clark

• Decision Date: 25 November 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-02897,97-02897
• Citation: 722 So.2d 232
• Parties: Michael C. BECKER, Appellant, v. Lisa CLARK, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

722 So.2d 232

Michael C. BECKER, Appellant, v. Lisa CLARK, Appellee.

No. 97-02897

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 25, 1998.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Charlie McCoy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

James A. Sheehan, St. Petersburg, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Michael C. Becker challenges the trial court's nonfinal order denying his motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. We agree that the appellant is entitled to qualified immunity and accordingly reverse.

Lisa Clark filed a three count complaint against the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and Becker, a district administrator of HRS, alleging that her name was wrongfully retained on a registry of medical abuse/neglect incidents. Count I was an action for damages brought against Becker pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of Clark's civil rights. Counts II and III were defamation counts against HRS and Becker, respectively.

HRS and Becker filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the defense of qualified immunity. The motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court. Becker filed a notice of appeal challenging the motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(viii), we have jurisdiction to review the order denying the motion to dismiss as it pertains to Count I because the trial court rejected Becker's defense of qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Qualified immunity shields a government actor from personal liability when his conduct does not violate clearly established rights. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)

. A two-part test is used to determine whether qualified immunity applies. First, the defendant must show that he performed the acts as part of a discretionary government function. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818,

102 S.Ct. 2727.

Clark alleges that while Becker was working as a district administrator for HRS, he caused a permanent abuse/neglect report to remain against Clark. There is no question that removal of an individual's name from an abuse/neglect list is part of a discretionary government function of a HRS district administrator. Therefore, the issue remains as to whether Clark has proven that Becker's conduct violated clearly established law.

On a motion to dismiss based on a qualified immunity defense, a trial court must examine the complaint to determine whether the allegations themselves reveal the existence of the qualified immunity defense; that is, whether, under the most favorable version of facts alleged, the defendant's action violated...