 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Huttner v. State9/4/2001
ise of judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless the official is guilty of a willful or malicious act. Official immunity thus protects government officials from suit for discretionary acts taken in the course of their official duties. The doctrine is designed to protect officials from "the fear of personal liability that might deter independent action." Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis, 581 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 1998) (quoting Elwood v. Rice County, 423 N.W.2d 671, 677 (Minn. 1988) (citations omitted).
Only discretionary decisions are immune from suit, so the critical determination is whether the nature of the official's actions is discretionary or ministerial. A discretionary act involves individual professional judgment, reflecting the professional goal and factors of a situation. Id. " ministerial duty is one in which nothing is left to discretion; it is absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts." Id. (quotation omitted).
"The starting point for analysis of an immunity question is the identification of 'the precise governmental conduct at issue.'" Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations, 563 N.W.2d 309, 315 (Minn. App. 1997) (quoting Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm'n, 553 N.W.2d 406, 415 (Minn. 1996)), aff'd in part, 582 N.W.2d 216 (Minn. 1998). Here, the precise conduct at issue is Fischer's failure to verify whether, in fact, Davis was no longer obligated under his individual treatment plan to take medications to control his mental illness that Fischer knew were prescribed at the time of his discharge. Despite noting in her records that she should verify Davis's statements that the psychiatrist had discontinued medication, Fischer failed to do so.
The existence of a ministerial act cannot be determined without a review of the duty underlying the challenged conduct. S.W. v. Spring Lake Park Sch. Dist. No. 16, 580 N.W.2d 19, 23 (Minn. 1998). " ublic officials clearly have a duty to adhere to ordinances and statutes." Wiederholt, 581 N.W.2d at 316 (citation omitted). Minn. Stat. § 245.4711, subd. 3 (1996), required case managers to develop a specific individual community support plan, which must incorporate the client's individual treatment plan, and to "review the [client's] progress, and monitor the provision of services." An individual treatment plan is defined:
written plan of intervention, treatment, and services for an adult with mental illness that is developed by a service provider under the clinical supervision of a mental health professional on the basis of a diagnostic assessment. The plan identifies goals and objectives of treatment, treatment strategy, a schedule for accomplishing treatment goals and objectives, and the individual responsible for providing treatment to the adult with mental illness. Minn. Stat. § 245.462, subd. 14 (1996).
Fischer was assigned as Davis's case manager while he was confined at the regional treatment center. She was aware of his assaultive behavior, that medication was prescribed for Davis, and that a condition of his provisional discharge and his individual treatment plan was that Davis would take medications as prescribed. Necessarily implied in Fischer's statutory duty to monitor Davis's compliance with his treatment plan was a duty to verify that Davis was abiding by the component of that plan requiring him to take prescribed medications. Fischer's note in her records to contact the psychiatrist to verify Davis's statement that medications were no longer prescribed did not create a duty, it merely acknowledged her already existing statutory duty to be (or becom
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|