KB v. Mills
| Decision Date | 25 January 2002 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 225883. |
| Citation | 248 Mich. App. 244,639 N.W.2d 261 |
| Parties | KB, a minor, and Joseph F. LAVEY II, conservator for KB Britton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Diane MILLS, Donna Beauchaine, Larry Pittman, and Ann Picotte, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Richard C. Clark and Mary K. Vader, Escanaba, for the plaintiff.
Charles J. Palmer, P.C. (by Charles J. Palmer), Sault Ste. Marie, for Diane Mills.
Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Mark V. Schoen, Assistant Attorney General, for Larry Pittman and Donna Beauchaine.
Vairo, Mechlin, Tomasi, Johnson & Manchester (by David R. Mechlin), Houghton, for Ann Picotte.
Before: SAWYER, P.J., and SMOLENSKI and WHITBECK, JJ.
Plaintiff Joseph F. Lavey, II, conservator for KB, a minor, appeals as of right from the trial court's order granting defendants summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7). Plaintiff brought an action for false imprisonment, battery, and violation of constitutional rights. The trial court concluded that defendants were immune from tort liability because they were engaged in a good-faith investigation of alleged child abuse. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Plaintiff is the conservator for KB, a severely disabled child who cannot speak, has limited ability to walk, and requires diapering. When the relevant events occurred, she was nine years old. The instant case arises from defendants' attempts to investigate the possibility that KB was the victim of sexual abuse. Defendant Diane Mills is a teacher's aide in the special-education program for the public school district that KB attends. Defendant Ann Picotte is the school principal.1 Defendant Donna Beauchaine is a Michigan State Police trooper assigned to investigate criminal sexual abuse cases. Defendant Larry Pittman is a child protective services worker with the Family Independence Agency (FIA).
On February 5, 1996, while changing KB's diaper, Mills noticed abnormal conditions in KB's genital area. Mills alerted the classroom teacher, Sandy Knoebel, who agreed that the conditions appeared abnormal. Mills and Knoebel then alerted Picotte about the problem. After observing the conditions, Picotte contacted the prosecutor's office to report her suspicion that KB was being sexually abused. The prosecutor instructed Picotte to contact Trooper Beauchaine, and Picotte followed those instructions.2 Trooper Beauchaine visited the school on February 9, 1996, and observed KB, as well. Beauchaine suspected that KB was being sexually abused. However, because KB was unable to communicate verbally, Beauchaine was unable to verify her suspicions without physical evidence. Beauchaine therefore asked the school to inform her immediately upon the discovery of further symptoms.
On April 23, 1996, Picotte contacted Beauchaine and reported that she and Mills had observed additional symptoms in KB's genital area, which suggested potential sexual abuse. Beauchaine directed Picotte to immediately transport KB to a doctor's office, assuring Picotte that the school had legal authority to do so. Beauchaine did not obtain a search warrant or a court order for the gynecological examination. Nor did Beauchaine investigate or determine what legal procedures she should have followed. Rather, Beauchaine contacted defendant Pittman at the FIA and asked him to meet her at the doctor's office. Pittman signed a consent form, purporting to be KB's legal guardian, authorizing the gynecological examination. Pittman later admitted that he signed the consent form despite the knowledge that he lacked authority to have KB examined by a doctor, absent parental consent or a court order.
Picotte and Mills transported KB to the doctor's office. When they arrived, Beauchaine and Pittman were already present. Mills and Beauchaine accompanied KB into an examining room, where a doctor performed a gynecological examination. That examination included oral, vaginal, and rectal swabs.3 After the examination, Mills and Picotte transported KB back to school, while Beauchaine awaited the laboratory results. Later that day, Beauchaine obtained the laboratory results, which were negative for any evidence of sexual abuse. Beauchaine did not inform Mills, Picotte, or Pittman that the results were negative. Further, no one attempted to contact KB's parents, either before or immediately after the examination. However, Beauchaine met with KB's parents the following day, accusing KB's father of sexually molesting the child. No evidence of sexual abuse was ever discovered, and no criminal charges alleging sexual abuse were ever brought against KB's parents.
KB's conservator brought the instant action against Mills, Picotte, Beauchaine, and Pittman, alleging that (1) they falsely imprisoned KB by taking her to the doctor's office without parental consent or a court order, (2) they battered KB by subjecting her to a gynecological examination, and (3) they violated KB's constitutional right to remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Defendants Picotte, Beauchaine, and Pittman moved for summary disposition, arguing that they were immune from tort liability under the governmental immunity statute, M.C.L. § 691.1407(2), and § 5 of the Child Protection Law, M.C.L. § 722.625, and arguing that the alleged constitutional violation failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Although Mills did not move for summary disposition, the parties agreed that the trial court should dismiss plaintiff's claims against Mills if it dismissed plaintiff's claims against the other defendants.4
The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of all defendants, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). The trial court assumed, for purposes of deciding the motion, that defendants should have obtained a court order before subjecting KB to the gynecological examination. Nonetheless, the trial court held that defendants were immune from tort liability because they were engaged in a good-faith investigation of possible child abuse. Plaintiff appeals as of right.
We affirm the trial court's grant of summary disposition to all defendants on plaintiff's constitutional claim. We also affirm the trial court's grant of summary disposition to defendants Mills and Picotte on all remaining claims. We reverse the trial court's grant of summary disposition to defendants Pittman and Beauchaine on plaintiff's battery and false imprisonment claims. We remand to the trial court for further proceedings regarding those claims.
We review de novo a trial court's decision granting or denying a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) to determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. DeCaminada v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 232 Mich.App. 492, 496, 591 N.W.2d 364 (1998), citing Limbach v. Oakland Co. Bd. of Co. Rd. Comm'rs, 226 Mich.App. 389, 395, 573 N.W.2d 336 (1997). In making this determination, this Court must consider all the documentary evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Barrow v. Pritchard, 235 Mich.App. 478, 480, 597 N.W.2d 853 (1999). Further, this Court must accept the contents of the complaint as true unless specifically contradicted by the documentary evidence. Sewell v. Southfield Public Schools, 456 Mich. 670, 674, 576 N.W.2d 153 (1998).
Plaintiff argues that the gynecological examination constituted an unreasonable search and seizure of KB's person and that defendants were liable for damages resulting from this alleged constitutional violation. However, our Supreme Court has clearly held that no inferred damages remedy for a violation of a state constitutional right exists against individual government employees. Jones v. Powell, 462 Mich. 329, 335, 612 N.W.2d 423 (2000). Therefore, with regard to the alleged constitutional violation, plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. MCR 2.116(C)(8). The trial court did not dismiss plaintiff's claim on this ground. Nevertheless, "[w]hen this Court concludes that a trial court has reached the correct result, this Court will affirm even if it does so under alternative reasoning." Messenger v. Ingham Co. Prosecutor, 232 Mich.App. 633, 643, 591 N.W.2d 393 (1998). We therefore hold that the trial court properly granted summary disposition to all defendants on plaintiff's constitutional claim.
The Child Protection Law, M.C.L. § 722.621 et seq., outlines various requirements regarding the reporting and investigation of suspected child abuse. One section of the statute grants immunity from tort liability in relation to such reporting and investigation. Section 5 of the act, M.C.L. § 722.625, provides, in pertinent part:5
A person acting in good faith who makes a report, cooperates in an investigation, or assists in any other requirement of this act is immune from civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred by that action. A person making a report or assisting in any other requirement of this act is presumed to have acted in good faith. This immunity from civil or criminal liability extends only to acts done pursuant to this act and does not extend to a negligent act that causes personal injury or death or to the malpractice of a physician that results in personal injury or death.
The trial court relied on this statutory language when it granted summary disposition to defendants. Concluding that each of the defendants had acted in good faith, the trial court held that defendants were entitled to the statutory immunity. Plaintiff challenges that holding, arguing that defendants are not entitled to the statutory immunity because they were not acting in good...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westlake Transportation, Inc. v. PSC
...decision of a court that obtained the correct result, albeit for a different reason, will be affirmed on appeal. Lavey v. Mills, 248 Mich.App. 244, 250, 639 N.W.2d 261 (2001). Plaintiffs Troy Cab, Inc., et al., allege that the intrastate fees in M.C.L. § 478.1 and M.C.L. § 478.2(1) are unco......
-
Hinojosa v. DNR, Docket No. 248185.
...disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) to determine if the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lavey v. Mills, 248 Mich. App. 244, 249, 639 N.W.2d 261 (2001). A court must consider all submitted documentary evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id at 25......
-
Wendrow v. Mich. Dep't of Human Servs.
...production. There is no indication that AW's health required exigent intervention at the time of the exam. In Lavey v. Mills, 639 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001), a child protective services worker and a policeman took a disabled child who could not speak to have a gynecological exam witho......