Rachel A. Parsons v. Mullica Township Board of Education(075859), 142 A.3d 715

Background

Rachel Parsons, a student, failed school-administered visual acuity screenings in 2001–02 and again in 2004; parents were not notified after the first test and were informed only after the second. Parsons was later diagnosed with amblyopia.
Plaintiffs sued the Mullica Township Board of Education and the school nurse for failing to timely notify parents of the 2001–02 screening results, alleging breach of duty and violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:16-2.2(1)(6).
Defendants moved for summary judgment claiming absolute immunity under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:6-4, which shields public entities/employees for failure to make or make an adequate physical or mental examination for public-health screening purposes (except when the exam is for treatment).
Trial court denied immunity; Appellate Division reversed, holding reporting results is part of the examination and thus immunized; this Court granted review.
The Supreme Court held that a visual acuity screening is a "physical examination" under N.J.S.A. 59:6-4 and that an adequate physical examination includes communicating results, so defendants are immune under the TCA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a school visual acuity screening is a "physical examination" under N.J.S.A. 59:6-4	Parsons: the statute immunizes only failure to perform an examination; screenings that do not constitute such an exam fall outside immunity	Board/Grasso: screenings (like vision tests) are public-health physical examinations intended to promote student health and fit within the statute	Held: Visual acuity screenings are "physical examinations" for public-health purposes and fall within N.J.S.A. 59:6-4
Whether reporting the results is part of an "adequate physical examination" covered by N.J.S.A. 59:6-4	Parsons: reporting/post-exam notification is distinct from the examination and not covered; immunity should not extend to failures to communicate results	Board/Grasso: communication of results is an integral component of a complete examination; excluding it would undermine the statute’s purpose and chill screenings	Held: Communicating results is an integral component of an adequate physical examination; failure to report is immunized under N.J.S.A. 59:6-4
Whether Kemp limits immunity to only exam performance and not post-exam duties	Parsons: Kemp does not grant absolute immunity for failure to communicate results; it only protects failures to perform adequate exams	Defendants: Kemp’s interpretation and legislative history support treating listed public-health screenings (including eye exams) as immunized, including reporting	Held: Kemp’s framework supports immunity for public-health screenings, and legislative history confirms inclusion of such screenings and their reporting within N.J.S.A. 59:6-4
Whether TCA immunity renders N.J.A.C. 6A:16-2.2(1)(6) meaningless	Parsons: immunity would nullify the regulation’s parent-notification safeguard and enforcement	Defendants: administrative regulations do not control statutory immunity; separate enforcement mechanisms exist; statutes govern	Held: Extending TCA immunity does not render the regulation meaningless; administrative rules cannot override statutory immunity and other enforcement avenues remain available

Key Cases Cited

Kemp by Wright v. State, 147 N.J. 294 (1997) (interpreting N.J.S.A. 59:6-4 and treating listed public-health screenings as illustrative, supporting broad immunity)
Reed v. Bojarski, 166 N.J. 89 (2001) (recognizing that a complete physical examination includes communicating test results and that examinee has expectation of timely disclosure)
Parsons v. Mullica Twp. Bd. of Educ., 440 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 2015) (Appellate Division decision reversing trial court and holding reporting is part of the exam; affirmed by NJ Supreme Court)
Pico v. State, 116 N.J. 55 (1989) (discussing interplay of ministerial duties and statutory immunity under the TCA)