Harvey v. Regional Health Network
2018 SD 3
S.D.2018Background
- Shirley Harvey, a long‑time personal care attendant at Golden Ridge senior care, was terminated in June 2012 after two coworkers reported she slapped and secluded a dementia resident; Harvey admitted to tapping and briefly taking the resident to a room but denied abuse.
- Employer (Regional Health and management staff) investigated, reported allegations to the Department of Health, and followed a multi‑step grievance process that ultimately sustained the termination; Harvey appealed internally and to unemployment and criminal processes.
- An administrative law judge awarded Harvey unemployment benefits (finding no gross misconduct); a criminal prosecution for felony elder abuse was dismissed on acquittal (judgment of acquittal granted at close of the State’s case).
- Harvey sued Regional Health and individual managers for slander, malicious prosecution, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination/breach of contract, loss of consortium, and punitive damages.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims; the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Harvey failed to create genuine issues of material fact on required elements (malice, extreme/outrageous conduct, legal causation, enforceable contractual promise).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Slander (loss of conditional privilege) | Harvey: defendants published false accusations and lost privilege by acting with reckless disregard/actual malice due to biased witnesses, poor investigation, and known coworker animus. | Regional Health: communications were conditionally privileged and no evidence defendants entertained serious doubts or acted with reckless disregard for truth. | Affirmed: no specific showing of malice; inadequate investigation or negligence alone insufficient to defeat privilege. |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) | Harvey: false allegations of felony elder abuse, mishandled reporting, and reliance on biased witnesses were extreme, outrageous, and caused severe distress. | Regional Health: conduct, though troubling and possibly negligent, did not rise to the high threshold of extreme and outrageous. | Affirmed: conduct did not meet the rigorous IIED standard. |
| Malicious Prosecution | Harvey: reporting by Regional Health led to criminal prosecution; defendants therefore caused prosecution without probable cause and with malice. | Regional Health: prosecution was independently pushed by the State’s Attorney (grand jury decision); law‑officer causation breaks direct liability. | Affirmed: State’s Attorney’s independent decision to pursue indictment legally caused prosecution; Regional Health not liable. |
| Breach of contract / Wrongful termination (grievance procedure) | Harvey: Fair Treatment/Grievance Procedure created enforceable contractual limits (post‑termination review) and Regional Health breached it by failing to investigate per procedure. | Regional Health: employee handbook and grievance policy reserved at‑will termination rights; no explicit or implied for‑cause contract altered at‑will status. | Affirmed: grievance procedure did not waive at‑will status or create a binding for‑cause termination contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Petersen v. Dacy, 550 N.W.2d 91 (S.D. 1996) (actual malice requires reckless disregard or serious doubts about truth)
- Janklow v. Viking Press, 459 N.W.2d 415 (S.D. 1990) (reckless conduct measured by defendant’s awareness of probable falsity)
- Peterson v. City of Mitchell, 499 N.W.2d 911 (S.D. 1993) (failure to investigate does not alone prove reckless disregard)
- Fix v. First State Bank of Roscoe, 807 N.W.2d 612 (S.D. 2011) (elements required to survive summary judgment on IIED claim)
- Danielson v. Hess, 807 N.W.2d 113 (S.D. 2011) (malicious prosecution causation requires defendant be proximate and efficient cause of prosecution)
- Butterfield v. Citibank of S.D., 437 N.W.2d 857 (S.D. 1989) (how handbook language can create or fail to create for‑cause employment agreement)
- Tibke v. McDougall, 479 N.W.2d 898 (S.D. 1992) (standard for extreme and outrageous conduct in IIED claims)