Hill v. Giani
296 P.3d 14
Alaska2013Background
- Mary Hill operated Wild Rose, an assisted living home, and J.H. resided there with Giani as J.H.'s state-certified independent care coordinator; DHSS investigated after Giani's confidential Report of Harm, leading to J.H.'s removal and a DHSS investigation.
- Collier, a state licensing specialist, conducted the investigation and Hill was found to have violated certain licensing provisions; DHSS issued sanctions and an Order of Correction, with Hill contesting via administrative appeal.
- Hill filed suit in 2007 alleging state-law tort claims (negligent supervision, intentional interference with contract and prospective economic advantage) and federal §1983 due process claims, among others, against Giani, Collier, and DHSS.
- The superior court granted summary judgment: DHSS and Collier immune under AS 47.32.160(a); Collier immune on Hill's §1983 due process claim; Giani immune under AS 47.24.120, based on the alleged good faith of the Report of Harm; Hill appealed and Giani cross-appealed for attorney’s fees.
- On appeal, the court affirmed immunity for DHSS and Collier and for Collier on the §1983 claim, but reversed summary judgment for Giani, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to Giani's good faith in filing the Report of Harm, and remanded for further proceedings.
- Because summary judgment was reversed as to Giani, the court vacated the attorney’s fees award to Giani and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHSS and Collier are immune under AS 47.32.160(a). | Hill contends immunity does not cover all licensing-related actions. | DHSS and Collier rely on broad immunity for licensure/monitoring activities. | Yes; immunity applies, barring Hill's state-law claims. |
| Whether Collier deprived Hill of due process in Hill's § 1983 claim. | Hill asserts temporary suspension/monitoring violated due process. | Collier's actions were authorized by statute and did not deprive Hill of a property interest without process. | No; Hill's due process rights were not violated; voluntary cessation did not constitute deprivation. |
| Whether Giani's Report of Harm was made in good faith, triggering AS 47.24.120 immunity. | Hill presents admissible evidence that Giani acted in bad faith. | Giani acted in good faith; the report was protected by immunity. | Yes; there is a genuine issue of material fact as to good faith; summary judgment improper. |
| Attorney's fees correctly awarded under Rule 82 given reversal on Giani. | Hill challenges the fee award due to reversal. | Giani seeks fees under Rule 82; the issue depends on the outcome of the appeal. | Vacated; fees to be reconsidered on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Native Vill. of Eklutna v. Alaska Railroad Corp., 87 P.3d 49 (Alaska 2004) (immunity and sovereign immunity contrasted with liability rule)
- Gates v. City of Tenakee Springs, 822 P.2d 455 (Alaska 1991) (policy decisions vs. operational decisions immunity distinction)
- B.R. v. State, Department of Corrections, 144 P.3d 431 (Alaska 2006) (negligent supervision not barred where independent protective duty asserted)
- Smith v. Stafford, 189 P.3d 1065 (Alaska 2008) (good faith standard for qualified immunity requires evidence of malice or bad faith)
- Yost v. State, Div. of Corps., Bus. & Prof'l Licensing, 234 P.3d 1264 (Alaska 2010) (context for due process and licensing decisions)
- McBeth v. Himes, 598 F.3d 708 (10th Cir. 2010) (voluntary relinquishment of a license - due process implications)