Watkins ex rel. Wrongful Death Heirs of Watkins v. Mississippi Department of Human Services
132 So. 3d 1037
| Miss. | 2014Background
- DHS removed Austin Watkins from his mother and placed him with his paternal grandmother, Janice Mowdy; Mowdy later obtained durable legal custody and DHS closed the case in May 2007.
- In June 2007 Austin (3½ years) was hospitalized for severe malnutrition and dehydration; doctors concluded no organic cause and questioned returning him to the home; he improved while hospitalized but missed post‑discharge follow‑ups.
- UMC personnel (doctors and social workers) testified they communicated concerns to Scott County DHS; DHS caseworker Heather Russell later testified she did not recall a formal report and asserted no statutory report was made.
- Austin died of starvation and dehydration in November 2008; Mowdy and another household member pleaded guilty to capital murder for his death.
- Plaintiff Tammy Watkins sued DHS under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act alleging DHS negligence for failing to investigate an alleged June 2007 report of abuse/neglect and for failing to obtain references for Mowdy; DHS moved for summary judgment asserting sovereign immunity (discretionary‑function exemption).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for DHS; the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed, holding genuine factual disputes exist about whether UMC made a report that would trigger DHS’s ministerial duty to investigate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an oral communication from UMC in June 2007 constituted a statutory "report" of suspected abuse/neglect that triggered DHS’s mandatory duty to investigate | Watkins: UMC doctors/social workers told DHS Austin was likely being starved (intentionally or unintentionally); that communication met the statutory definition of a report and thus triggered a ministerial duty to investigate | DHS: No formal report was made to DHS; any determination whether a call amounts to a report involves discretionary judgment, so sovereign immunity applies | Genuine factual dispute exists as to whether a report was made; credibility determinations preclude summary judgment and, if a report occurred, DHS’s ministerial duty to investigate would be triggered (reversed and remanded) |
| Whether DHS employees had discretion to decide a phone call was not a report (discretionary‑function defense) | Watkins: Statute and DHS policy leave no discretion to treat a communication that alleges abuse/neglect as nonreport; screening occurs after intake | DHS: Intake workers must exercise judgment whether incoming information qualifies as a report, implicating policy choices protected by sovereign immunity | Court: Statute and DHS policy show DHS had no discretion to treat an allegation as not a report; whether a report occurred is factual, not a legal exercise of discretion for summary judgment purposes |
| Whether DHS failed to obtain references for Mowdy before placement (ministerial duty) | Watkins: The home‑study form lacked reference entries; testimony suggests inadequate documentation of references prior to placement | DHS: Personnel testified references were obtained but the computer form was blank due to malfunction and Mowdy identified her references | Court: The opinion focuses on the report/investigation issue as dispositive; summary judgment was improper based on the disputed report evidence (the references issue did not support summary judgment) |
| Whether the trial court properly considered the Gatewood affidavit and other competing evidence on summary judgment | Watkins: Gatewood affidavit should be struck or at least not resolved in DHS’s favor without depositions; credibility conflicts remain | DHS: Gatewood affidavit establishes UMC made no report under its policy, supporting summary judgment | Court: Gatewood affidavit does not resolve the credibility conflict; plaintiff produced sufficient testimony/affidavit to create a genuine issue of material fact independent of the Social Autopsy or Gatewood affidavit |
Key Cases Cited
- Miss. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. S.C., 119 So.3d 1011 (Miss. 2013) (MTCA is the exclusive remedy for tort claims against state and its employees)
- Honeycutt v. Coleman, 120 So.3d 358 (Miss. 2013) (summary judgment reviewed de novo; evidence viewed in favor of nonmoving party)
- Treasure Bay Corp. v. Ricard, 967 So.2d 1235 (Miss. 2007) (credibility is a question of fact for the jury and cannot be resolved on summary judgment)
- Stewart v. City of Jackson, 804 So.2d 1041 (Miss. 2002) (distinguishes discretionary vs. ministerial duties under sovereign‑immunity framework)