352 P.3d 8
Mont.2015Background
- In Jan. 2008 licensed social worker Lisa Schmiesing reported to Montana DPHHS that Leslee Weber had "brainwashed" her two daughters and might harm them; the Department investigated and quickly "staffed" the report with supervisors, a victim advocate, and the county attorney.
- The county attorney filed emergency petitions and the district court granted immediate protective orders; the Department removed the children to foster care the next day and returned them to Weber about a month later after the Youth in Need of Care case was dismissed.
- Weber sued the State alleging negligent investigation and that Department employees (chiefly Child Protection Specialist Kathryn Lamach) were grossly negligent or knowingly provided false information in affidavits supporting removal, causing various injuries.
- The State moved for summary judgment asserting statutory immunity under § 41-3-203(1), MCA (immunity for persons investigating/reporting child abuse unless grossly negligent or acting in bad faith/with malice/knowing falsity).
- The district court denied the State’s § 41-3-203(1) immunity motion in Aug. 2013 (finding factual disputes about whether Lamach followed training), but later granted summary judgment to the State on other grounds in Mar. 2014 (Weber lacked expert proof of standard of care); the Supreme Court resolved the cross-appeal on immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State is entitled to immunity under § 41-3-203(1), MCA | Weber: Lamach was grossly negligent and knowingly provided false statements in affidavits (failed to conduct adequate investigation; used boilerplate/false statements) | State: Lamach promptly investigated, corroborated allegations, "staffed" the report, and had authority to act without interviewing Weber when she posed a flight/harm risk; immunity applies absent gross negligence or knowing falsity | Court: Reversed denial of immunity; State entitled to immunity because Weber failed to raise genuine issues that employees were grossly negligent or knowingly false |
| Whether Lamach’s failure to interview Weber and others constituted gross negligence | Weber: Not interviewing parents/others violated statutes/policy and showed lack of even slight care | State: Statutes/policy allow discretion; immediate danger and risk Weber would abscond justified limited contacts | Court: No triable issue; evidence showed reasonable, prompt investigation and discretionary steps given safety concerns |
| Whether statements in Lamach’s affidavit were knowingly false | Weber: Affidavit misrepresented scope/steps of investigation and included boilerplate that Weber had a right to a support person | State: Statements were opinion/boilerplate or accurately reflected interviews with Schmiesing and Dolan; one inaccurate phrasing (no prior reports) was immaterial because prior call was informational only | Court: Single incorrect statement insufficient to show knowing falsity; no genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether expert testimony was required to establish investigatory standard of care | Weber: (argued below) | State: (argued below) | Court: Did not reach on appeal because immunity resolved the case (district court had earlier relied on lack of expert proof to enter judgment for State) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gudmundsen v. State ex rel. Mont. State Hosp. Warm Springs, 349 Mont. 297, 203 P.3d 813 (Mont. 2009) (Montana law protecting private actors from liability extends that protection to the State)
- Bailey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 370 Mont. 73, 300 P.3d 1149 (Mont. 2013) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- City of Missoula v. Iosefo, 376 Mont. 161, 330 P.3d 1180 (Mont. 2014) (statutory interpretation reviewed for correctness)
- Smith v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 344 Mont. 278, 187 P.3d 639 (Mont. 2008) (summary judgment standards)
- Dollar Plus Stores, Inc. v. R-Mont. Assocs., L.P., 350 Mont. 476, 209 P.3d 216 (Mont. 2009) (opposition to summary judgment must present substantial evidence on essential elements)
- Fielder v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 337 Mont. 256, 162 P.3d 67 (Mont. 2007) (summary judgment burden shifting)
- Rusk v. Skillman, 162 Mont. 436, 514 P.2d 587 (Mont. 1973) (definition of gross negligence as failure to use slight care)