Rachel A. Parsons v. Mullica Township Board of Education
111 A.3d 144
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2015Background
- From 2001/2002 through at least 2004, Rachel Parsons was a student at Mullica Township Elementary School, where Grasso, an RN/CSN, conducted vision screenings.
- Rachel failed the right-eye screening but her parents were not notified and she was not referred for follow-up testing.
- There was a two-year delay in diagnosing and treating Rachel’s right-eye amblyopia due to late notification of screening results.
- Plaintiffs allege a duty to notify results under N.J.A.C. 6A:16-2.2(k)(6) was breached, causing harm.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in 2013 (Rachel age 17) seeking damages under the Tort Claims Act against the Board and Grasso; defendants moved for summary judgment claiming immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:6-4 and N.J.S.A. 18A:40-4.5.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grasso is immune under N.J.S.A. 18A:40-4.5 | Defense immunity extends to all actions under the Scoliosis Act | N.J.S.A. 18A:40-4.5 immunizes only actions arising from the Scoliosis Act | No; 18A:40-4.5 provides immunity only for the Scoliosis Act, not Grasso's vision screening. |
| Whether the health-screening视觉 acuity examination falls within N.J.S.A. 59:6-4 immunity | Screenings are exempt from liability as public health examinations | Screenings are within the scope of 59:6-4 immunity | Yes; visual acuity screening is a physical examination immunized by 59:6-4. |
| Whether the notice requirement under N.J.A.C. 6A:16-2.2(k)(6) is immunized by 59:6-4 | Notification failure should be liable despite the screening being immune | Notification is part of the examination process and falls under immunity | Yes; failure to notify the parent is within 59:6-4 immunity. |
| Whether notification is a ministerial act and thus immunized | Notification is ministerial, not discretionary | Ministerial acts can be outside immunity depending on context | Ministerial status does not override specific immunity; 59:6-4 applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kemp by Wright v. State, 147 N.J. 294 (1997) (establishes absolute immunity under 59:6-4 for public health examinations; vaccination example.)
- Tice v. Cramer, 133 N.J.347 (1993) (specific immunities trump general discretionary liability; supports special immunity logic.)
- Wilson v. City of Jersey City, 209 N.J.558 (2012) (de novo statutory interpretation; not bound by trial court’s construction.)
- Kemp by Wright v. State, 147 N.J. 294 (1997) (reiterates framework for TCA immunities and ministerial vs discretionary acts.)
- Creason v. Dep’t of Health Servs., 957 P.2d 1323 (Cal. 1998) (California analog supporting specific immunity for mandatory/public health procedures.)