Jensen Ex Rel. Jensen v. Cunningham
2011 UT 17
| Utah | 2011Background
- Parker Jensen, a 12-year-old, was diagnosed with Ewing's sarcoma after tissue samples were analyzed at Primary Children's Medical Center.
- The Jensens pursued additional opinions and alternative treatments (e.g., IPT) while doctors urged immediate chemotherapy.
- DCFS was notified based on concerns of medical neglect due to refusal of conventional treatment; a juvenile court petition for custody was filed.
- A formal referral to DCFS led to Protective Custody proceedings; Parker was placed under state guardianship while treatment decisions continued.
- Between mid-2003 and 2005, Parker's care and the Jensens' challenge to DCFS actions and state officials culminated in a Utah state court lawsuit asserting state and federal constitutional and common-law claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment on state-law claims based on collateral estoppel, and the Utah Supreme Court ultimately held that collateral estoppel did not apply and that several officials were immune under quasi-judicial immunity; the remaining claims failed as a matter of law under Utah constitutional standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does collateral estoppel bar state-law claims when federal rulings addressed federal rights? | Jensen contends state and federal standards differ; collateral estoppel misapplied. | Defendants rely on federal resolution prohibiting state claims. | No; collateral estoppel not applicable to state constitutional claims. |
| Are certain defendants protected by governmental or quasi-judicial immunity from state-constitutional damages claims? | Eisenman and Albritton should not be immune given alleged misrepresentations. | Eisenman and Albritton acted in integral judicial-process roles; immune. | Albritton and Eisenman are protected by quasi-judicial immunity; Wagner, Cunningham, and Anderson not shielded for damages. |
| Are the asserted Utah state constitutional rights self-executing and damages available for violations? | Rights in Art. I, Secs. 1, 7, and 14 allow damages for flagrant violations. | Damages not available unless three-part Spackman criteria are met. | Rights are self-executing; damages require meeting Spackman criteria, which plaintiffs do not. |
| Did the district court properly resolve the state-constitutional claims under Spackman after rejecting collateral estoppel? | State claims should proceed; Spackman standards apply. | Damages not available; immunity and lack of flagrant violation foreclose claims. | Yes; district court's resolution consistent with Spackman showing no flagrant rights violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spackman ex rel. Spackman v. Bd. of Educ., 2000 UT 87 (Utah 2000) (self-executing provisions; damages only under narrow circumstances)
- Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 2008 UT 70 (Utah 2008) (issue preclusion requires identical issues; not controlling here)
- Thacker v. City of Hyattsville, 762 A.2d 172 (Md.App. 2000) (federal immunity standards not identical to state law; collateral estoppel not applicable)
- Parker v. Dodgion, 971 P.2d 496 (Utah 1998) (quasi-judicial immunity for court-appointed evaluators)
- In re J.P., 648 P.2d 1364 (Utah 1982) (parental rights; due process; welfare of the child standard)
- Wells v. Children’s Aid Soc’y of Utah, 681 P.2d 199 (Utah 1984) (parens patriae balancing parental rights and state interests)
- State v. DeBooy, 2000 UT 32 (Utah 2000) (Utah constitutional rights may be interpreted divergently from federal)