Ramsey v. Yavapai Family Advocacy Ctr.

• Decision Date: 13 July 2010
• Docket Number: No. 1 CA-CV 08-0824.,1 CA-CV 08-0824.
• Citation: 225 Ariz. 132,235 P.3d 285
• Parties: Alex RAMSEY, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.YAVAPAI FAMILY ADVOCACY CENTER, an Arizona entity; Larayne Ness; Brenda Sheets; Yavapai Community Hospital Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation, dba Yavapai Regional Medical Center; Judy Denton; Cappriella McQuiston, Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

225 Ariz. 132

235 P.3d 285

Alex RAMSEY, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.YAVAPAI FAMILY ADVOCACY CENTER, an Arizona entity; Larayne Ness; Brenda Sheets; Yavapai Community Hospital Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation, dba Yavapai Regional Medical Center; Judy Denton; Cappriella McQuiston, Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 08-0824.

Court of Appeals of Arizona Division 1, Department D.

July 13, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

The Doerfler Law Firm By Christopher A. Doerfler, La Crosse, WI, Attorney for Appellant.

Grasso Law Firm PC By Robert Grasso, Jr. and Kim S. Alvarado, Chandler, Attorneys for Appellees Yavapai Family Advocacy Center and Sheets.

Broening Oberg Woods & Wilson PC By Robert T. Sullivan and Brian W. Purcell, Phoenix, Attorneys for Appellee Ness.

Anna Young PLLC By Anna C. Young, Prescott, Attorney for Appellees Yavapai Regional Medical Center, Yavapai Community Hospital Association and Denton.

OPINION

OROZCO, Judge.

¶ 1 Alex Ramsey (Ramsey) appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of LaRayne Ness (Ness), Judy Denton and Yavapai Community Hospital Association (collectively, Denton), Brenda Sheets (Sheets), and Yavapai Family Advocacy Center (YFAC) (collectively, Defendants).¹ For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 Ramsey and his ex-wife, A.S, were married in Idaho in 1997. Ramsey and A.S. had one child (Child). During their subsequent divorce, A.S. reported to Idaho authorities that she suspected Ramsey was sexually abusing Child. On February 6, 2003, Child was examined by a doctor who found A.S.'s suspicions of sexual abuse to be unsupported.

¶ 3 Soon after the examination, Ramsey, A.S. and Child moved from Idaho to Arizona. On September 9, 2003, A.S. took Child to Cornerstone Family Counseling (Cornerstone) to receive counseling from Sheets. At the first session, A.S. reported to Sheets that she believed Child had been sexually molested by Ramsey. After the first session, Sheets concluded that because of A.S.'s reports and Child's behavior, she “had concerns that some type of abuse may be happening.” ² On September 22, 2003, during Child's third session, Child told Sheets “that her daddy touched her” inappropriately. ³ The same day, Sheets reported to Child Protective Services (CPS) that she believed Ramsey had sexually abused Child.

¶ 4 Based on Sheets's allegations, Clyde Bentley (Bentley), a Yavapai County Sheriff's Detective, initiated a criminal investigation. Interviews and a physical examination of Child took place at YFAC. YFAC is a facility in which members of law enforcement, county attorneys and CPS assist in the investigation of child abuse, domestic assault, vulnerable adult abuse and other instances of family violence.

¶ 5 Ness, a sexual assault nurse examiner, performed a medical forensic evaluation of Child at YFAC.⁴ Ness contracted with the Yavapai County Attorney's Office to perform the evaluation. At no time was Ness employed by YFAC. Ness reported that during the evaluation, Child stated that “her dad” had touched her inappropriately. As part of the examination, Ness took colposcopic photos of Child. Ness's evaluation of Child led her to conclude that there was definitive evidence of sexual abuse. She forwarded her report to Bentley.

¶ 6 Bentley requested a second opinion from Denton, the nursing supervisor at Yavapai Regional Medical Center.⁵ Denton reviewed the colposcopic photos taken by Ness and concluded that Child had more than likely suffered from a long history of sexual abuse “since just after her birth.” Based on the photos, Denton agreed with Ness's conclusions.

¶ 7 Bentley testified before a grand jury regarding Denton's conclusions. After hearing his testimony, the grand jury indicted Ramsey on multiple criminal charges relating to sexual conduct with a minor. However, the State later voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. The prosecutor stated that the “Yavapai County Attorney's Office concluded that the chances of conviction were not high enough to warrant continued prosecution of the case.”

¶ 8 Ramsey argues that part of the State's decision to dismiss the charges against him was based on a subsequent evaluation of Child performed by the State's expert, Dr. Kathryn C. (Dr. C.). Dr. C. examined Child on October 1, 2004, more than a year after Ness's original examination. Dr. C. found “no signs of acute or healed injury.” Nevertheless, Dr. C. concluded that “[t]his does not preclude the possibility of sexual abuse, as many sexually abusive acts are not associated with physical injury.” ⁶

¶ 9 Following the State's dismissal of the charges, Ramsey filed a civil action against each appellee, alleging: (1) negligence and/or gross negligence; (2) malicious prosecution; (3) abuse of process; (4) false light invasion of privacy; (5) wrongful intrusion upon private affairs; (6) false arrest and imprisonment; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) aiding and abetting tortious conduct; (9) defamation and defamation per se; and (10) loss of consortium. Each appellee moved for summary judgment.

¶ 10 On August 28, 2008, the trial court entered summary judgment: (1) in favor of Ness on all claims based on the immunity provided by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 13-3620.J (2010); ⁷ (2) in favor of Denton on all claims based on the immunity provided by A.R.S. § 13-3620.J; (3) in favor of YFAC because Ramsey failed to produce evidence that would support any claim against YFAC; and (4) in favor of Sheets on claims relating to her reporting or participation in the criminal investigation based on A.R.S. § 13-3620.J. On October 23, 2008, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sheets on all remaining claims, finding no evidence of malice and determining Sheets owed no duty of care to Ramsey as a non-patient parent in counseling Child.

¶ 11 Ramsey filed a timely notice of appeal and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21.A.1 and -2101.B (2003).

DISCUSSION

¶ 12 Ramsey raises six issues on appeal: (1) whether A.R.S. § 13-3620.J violates the Arizona Constitution's anti-abrogation clause; (2) whether A.R.S. § 13-3620.J violates the equal protection clause of the Arizona Constitution; (3) whether a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the reasonableness of the conclusions reported by Sheets, Ness, and Denton; (4) whether a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the issue of malice as applied to Sheets, Ness, and Denton; (5) whether a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding YFAC's involvement; and (6) whether Sheets owed a duty to Ramsey while counseling Child. On appeal, Ness raises a cross-issue, arguing that Ramsey's claims against her are barred by the statute of limitations.

¶ 13 We review the constitutionality of statutes de novo. Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County, 213 Ariz. 241, 245, ¶ 11, 141 P.3d 416, 420 (App.2006). When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and the party against whom summary judgment was entered. Mousa v. Saba, 222 Ariz. 581, 585, ¶ 15, 218 P.3d 1038, 1042 (App.2009). We review the trial court's decision on the record before the trial court. Id. The existence of a legal duty is a question of law that we review de novo. Clark v. New Magma Irrigation & Drainage Dist., 208 Ariz. 246, 248, ¶ 8, 92 P.3d 876, 878 (App.2004).

I. Mandatory Reporting Statute-A.R.S. § 13-3620

¶ 14 The majority of Ramsey's arguments focus on Arizona's mandatory reporting statute, A.R.S. § 13-3620. Section 13-3620.A provides:

Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of physical injury, abuse, Child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect that appears to have been inflicted on the minor by other than accidental means or that is not explained by the available medical history as being accidental in nature ... shall immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace officer or to child protective services in the department of economic security, except if the report concerns a person who does not have care, custody or control of the minor, the report shall be made to a peace officer only.... For purposes of this subsection, “person” means:

1. Any physician, physician's assistant, optometrist, dentist, osteopath, chiropractor, podiatrist, behavioral health professional, nurse, psychologist, counselor or social worker who develops the reasonable belief in the course of treating a patient.

¶ 15 Under the statute, individuals identified in A.R.S. § 13-3620.A.1 have a mandatory duty to report abuse when they reasonably believe a minor is being or has been abused. Individuals not falling within this definition may report suspected abuse pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3620.F:

Any person other than one required to report or cause reports to be made under subsection A of this section who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been a victim of abuse, child abuse, physical injury, a reportable offense or neglect may report the information to a peace officer or to child protective services in the department of economic security, except if the report concerns a person who does not have care, custody or control of the minor, the report shall be made to a peace officer only.

¶ 16 Under certain circumstances, A.R.S. § 13-3620.J provides immunity from civil and criminal liability for those who report abuse:

A person who furnishes a report, information or records required or authorized under this section, or a person who participates in a judicial or administrative proceeding or investigation resulting from a report, information or records required or authorized under this section, is immune from any civil or criminal liability by reason of that action unless the person acted with malice or unless the person has been charged with or is suspected of abusing or neglecting the child or children in question.

Because an individual who...