¶ 1. Plaintiff Koshen Czechorowski appeals from a summary judgment dismissing his tort claims against the State of Vermont and Dena Monahan, an attorney for the Department of Aging and Disabilities. Plaintiff contends the court erred holding that the claims were barred on the basis of sovereign and official immunity. We affirm in
¶ 2. The material facts may be summarized as follows. Plaintiff served as a care giver and painting instructor for L.B., an adult male diagnosed as mentally retarded, schizophrenic, and autistic. L.B. is unable to verbalize more than a few words at a time, but in 1996, through a technique known as “facilitated communication” (FC), L.B. alleged that plaintiff had raped and sexually abused him.
¶3. After completing the interviews and site visits prescribed by statute, the Department investigator, Jody Blinn, initially recommended that the report of abuse be found unsubstantiated. See id. § 6906(c) (upon completion of investigation, written report “recommending a finding of substantiated or unsubstantiated” shall be submitted to Commissioner). Although a copy of Blinn’s initial report was not produced, she acknowledged in her discovery responses that she had initially recommended a finding that the alleged abuse was unsubstantiated, having concluded that the information obtained during the investigation wаs inconclusive. She based that opinion on certain inconsistencies in L.B.’s statements, the lack of physical evidence of rape from a medical exam conducted shortly after the allegations surfaced, plaintiff’s positive history as a foster parent, and concerns about LJB.’s credibility due to a prior incident involving similar allegations against another individual which, after investigation, had been found to be unsubstantiated. Blinn admitted, however, that her supervisor had instructed her to rewrite the report to find that the allegation was substantiated.
¶ 4. Blinn’s revised report of February 25,1997, omitted reference to the specific exculpatory factors cited above, except for a description of plaintiff’s positive history as a foster parent. In addition, the revised report emphasized the incul-patory evidence and the consistencies among the incriminating facts. While omitting, for example, reference to certain inconsistencies in two of the six FC sessions, the revised report noted the consistencies among the other four FC sessions where L.B. described the alleged assaults. In another example, the report summarized the report of the medical doctor, Dr. Brown, who had examined L.B., stating that according to his medical examination, the doctor believed there was evidence “that L.B. was sexually abused.” The revised report did not specifically state, however, that Dr. Brown found no physical evidence of abuse, but rather based his conclusions on “eye contact” and L.B.’s “direct response to the examiners [sic] questions.”
¶ 5. The Department notified plaintiff that it intended to substantiate the allegation of abuse and provided him with a copy of the revised report. Plaintiff, in response, requested an administrative
¶ 6. Following the administrative hearing, Monahan discussed the case with the Commissioner, and prepared a draft decision at his request. The final decision, signed by the Commissioner on June 13, 1997, substantiated the report that plaintiff had sexually abused L.B. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the Human Services Board. See id. § 6906(d) (within thirty days of notice that report has been substantiated, person may apply to Board for relief on ground that it is unsubstantiated, and Board shall hold a fair hearing under 3 V.S.A. §3091). Plaintiff requested additional discovery prior to the Board hearing. Monahan, in response, declined to disclose the records of any complaints made by L.B. against other care providers on the basis of confidentiality, but complied with the hearing officer’s order to produce Dr. Brown’s medical report and lab results and Jody Biinn’s case notes and other evidence.
¶ 7. The parties disputed L.B.’s competence to testify and the admissibility of his prior FC statements. Monahan attempted to demonstrate L.B.’s ability to communicate via FC at the fair hearing. All parties agreed that the demonstration was a failure, and the proceedings were continued. Shortly thereafter, Monahan informed the Board that the Department had decided to withdraw the substantiated-abuse finding. The Board later granted — over the Department’s opposition — plaintiff’s motion to reverse the Department decision and- destroy the Department’s records pursuant to 33 V.S.A. § 6906(e), (g).
¶8. Plaintiff subsequently filed this civil suit against the State, the Department’s investigator Jody Blinn, the Department’s general counsel and prosecuting attorney Dena Monahan, and five other parties, including L.B.’s doctor and other care givers. The claims against Blinn and Monahan alleged malicious prosecution and intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress. The claim against the State alleged liability for Blinn and Monahan’s acts and' omissions under the Vermont Tort Claims Act. See 12 V.S.A. § 5601(a) (establishing state liability for negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of state employees made within scope of their employment). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims, holding that: (1) the State had sovereign immunity; (2) Blinn had qualified immunity; and (3) Monahan had absolute immunity. Monahan, the court concluded, had “acted in a manner analogous to that of a public prosecutor” and therefore was absolutely immune from suit for “all her actions before the Commissioner, her in-court conduct [before the Board], and her reliance on Ms. Blinn’s investigation report.” Plaintiff settled out of court with the other defendants. The claims against Blinn were apparently discharged in bankruptcy
¶ 9. In reviewing a summary judgment, we use “the same standard as the trial court, and affirm the granting of a motion for summary judgment if there are no genuine issues of mаterial fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Springfield, Hydroelectric Co. v. Copp,
¶ 10. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred by extending the doctrine of official immunity to Monahan’s actions during the proceedings before the Commissioner and the Board. Vermont law recognizes two levels of immunity for the official acts and omissions of public employees: absolute immunity and qualified immunity. LaShay v. Dep’t of Social & Rehab. Setvs.,
¶ 11. In Vermont, as nationally, “[m]ost public officials are entitled, only to qualified immunity.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons,
¶ 12. In determining whether qualified immunity applies to protect a particular public function or official, we are guided principally by “the purposes behind” the doctrine. Hudson v. Toum of East Montpelier,
¶ 14. Nor is there any question that, in her role as public advoсate defending appeals before the Board, Monahan’s functions were closely analogous to those of a government prosecutor and therefore were entitled to absolute immunity. Indeed, both state and federal courts have held that government attorneys engaged in civil enforcement actions are analogous to criminal prosecutors, and therefore are equally entitled to absolute immunity. The seminal decision in this area is Butz, where the United States Supreme Court held that a Department of Agriculture attorney who had initiated and pursued an enforcement action to revoke the registration of a commodity futures commission merchant was entitled to absolutе immunity in a later damage action.
¶ 15. Subsequent state and federal decisions have applied similar reasoning to shield government attorneys in a variety of civil contexts. See, e.g., Gray v. Poole,
¶ 16. These decisions leave no doubt that Monahan, as the State’s advocate before the Board, enjoyed absolute immunity from suit for her activities within that context. The underlying policy reasons that protect criminal prosecutors from tort liability apply with equal force to public attorneys engaged in civil enforcement actions to protect vulnerable adults in nursing homes or other institutional settings from abuse and neglect. The State’s interest in the vigorous and uninhibited enforcement of the abuse-prevention law is obviously strong, and the public attorney defеnding the action must exercise his or her judgment over a range of sensitive decisions that are bound to provoke anger, second-guessing, and retaliatory citizen suits, as this case amply attests. The State’s vital interest in the free and independent judgment of those charged with the duty of enforcing the elder-abuse prevention law thus compels the extension of absolute immunity to defendant Monahan’s representation of the Department before the Board.
¶ 17. It remains to determine whether the trial court correctly concluded that Monahan enjoyed immunity, qualified or absolute, from plaintiff’s claims. Although the allegations of the complaint and subsequent pleadings are difficult to parse, liberally cоnstrued they appear to state three basic claims against Monahan in her role as general counsel to the Department. First, plaintiff contends that Monahan engaged in improper ex parte contacts with the Commissioner in discussing the allegations and drafting the Commissioner’s decision. In this regard, plaintiff argues that Monahan violated a ministerial duty under 3 V.S.A. § 813, a provision of the Administrative Procedure Act which provides generally that “members or employees of any agency assigned to render a decision or to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in a contested case shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue of fact... [or] any issue of law ... except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.”
¶ 18. The claim is unpersuasive. As noted, Monahan served as the Commissioner’s general counsel — not as a separate party or prosecutor — in the initial administrative hearing. Therefore, even assuming that §813 is applicable to hearings before the Commissioner, the statutory exceptions apply. See 3 V.S.A. §813(1) (agency decision maker may communicate with other employees of the agency); id. §813(2) (agency decision maker may have aid and advice of one or more personal assistants). Furthermore, Monahan’s rendering of legal advice and assistance to the Commissioner was plainly a discretionary function protected by qualified immunity. Courts have long recognized that government attorneys engage in a variety of tasks, including the rendering of legal advice and counsel, that require the exercise of judgment and thus warrant the protection of qualified immunity to ensure the free and unfettered exercise of that duty. See, e.g., Burns v. Reed,
¶ 19. Plaintiff next contends that Monahan knew or should have known that the revised report of substantiated abuse was incomplete, and that she violated ministerial duties by failing to investigate further. In analyzing these claims, it is helpful to understand Monahan’s role in the investigatory process. Monahan stated without dispute that it was the practice of the Department that general counsel did “not become involved in cases of alleged abuse until the accused person seeks a Commissioner’s review. At that point, [general counsel] review[s] the investigator’s report and any supporting documents.” As to what, if anything, Monahan knew of the original report that the allegation of abuse was unsubstantiated, we note that plaintiff did not allege, nor does the record evidence show, that Monahan was provided with the original report. Blinn did allege in her response to plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts that she had informed Monahan prior to the Commissioner’s hearing that she had recommended a finding of “unsubstantiated” in her original report. Although she adduced no affidavit or other evidence to support the statement, it is not disputed by plaintiff or Monahan.
¶ 20. Under these circumstances, it is certainly arguable that Monahan should have investigated further to uncover the original report to which Blinn had allegedly alluded (assuming that it still existed), compared it with the revised report, and advised plaintiff and the Commissioner оf Blinn’s original findings and recommendation. The elder abuse statute provides that “[u]pon completion of the investigation, a written report describing all evidence obtained and recommending a finding of substantiated or unsubstantiated shall be submitted to the commissioner or designee for final resolution.” 33 V.S.A. § 6906(c) (emphasis added). Indeed, the statute specifically defines a “substantiated report” as a determination, after investigation, of abuse “based upon accurate and reliable information.” Id. § 6902(12). Thus, had the allegations and evidence here suggested that Monahan intentionally withheld from plaintiff nonprivileged information contained in the original report, plaintiff might have been able to show that Monahan violated a ministerial duty under § 6906(c).
¶ 21. Thе essence of the claim, however, is not that Monahan intentionally withheld nonprivileged information contained in the original report, but rather that she was derelict in failing to “investigate further” and uncover the original report and its findings. While this may have been imprudent and even neglectful, we can not conclude that it violated a ministerial duty under § 6906(c). The decision whether to investigate further was a discretionary one, and therefore protected from suit. It is worth recalling that the very purpose of qualified immunity is to ensure that public officials will enjoy broad decision making discretion free from the threat of liability for errors of judgment. See Malley v. Briggs,
¶ 22. Plaintiff further asserts that Monahan knew or should have known that the allegations in the revised report were insufficient to support its finding of abuse. He argues specifically that Monahan failed to adequately analyze the evidence against him by neglecting,
¶ 23. Along the same lines, plaintiff asserts that Monahan acted unreasonably in failing to question the reliability of L.B.’s facilitated communications. As noted, Monahan’s conduct in assessing the evidence and determining whether, in effect, to counsel in support of substantiation falls squarely within the scope of her discretionary function as general counsel to the Department and her functions as advocate before the Board, and is thus immune from suit. Reed,
¶ 24. Nor did the existence of conflicting or exculpatory evidence establish that Monahan’s decisions as general counsel wеre unreasonable or in bad faith. Her actions must be considered objectively reasonable if “an officer of reasonable competence could have made the same choice in similar circumstances.” Amy’s Enters, v. Sorrell,
¶ 25. Plaintiff also claims that Monahan violated a mandatory statutory duty under 33 V.S.A. § 6906(c), by declining to disclose information related to L.B.’s unsubstantiated earlier claim agаinst another care provider, M.B.
¶ 26. How these two statutory provisions relate for purposes of disclosure of the unrelated investigation report involving M.B. is unclear. Monahan arguably could have disclosed the M.B. incident to plaintiff, redacting any information necessary to protect the privacy interests of third persons. Monahan’s conclusion that the information was privileged, however, was a discretionary judgment within her core functions as an advocate beforе the Board, and therefore was protected by absolute immunity. See, e.g., State v. Superior Ct,
¶ 27. Plaintiff additionally claims that, by ultimately withdrawing rather than seeking to reverse the Commissioner’s decision, Monahan breached a ministerial duty under 33 V.S.A. § 6906(c), which provides that “[u]pon completion of the investigation, a written report ... shall be submitted to the commissioner or designee for final resolution.” Even assuming that withdrawal of the report fell short of a “final resolution,” the duty, if
¶ 28. Finally, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by immunizing the State from suit for the actions of its employees Blinn and Monahan. Plaintiff’s complaint against the State alleged that “[a]s a result of Blinn’s and Monahan’s ... actions ..., the [S]tate of Vermont is liable to the Plaintiff for the prosecution of the Plaintiff without probable cause and with malice.” Thus, the claims against the State are derivative of the claims against the individual defendants, and because we have held that Monahan’s challenged conduct was protected by absolute and qualified immunity, the State claims predicated thereon must also fail. See Winfield, v. State,
¶29. Plaintiff also alleged, however, that defendant Blinn violated a ministerial duty, under 33 V.S.A. § 6906(c), by failing to include in her revised report “all evidence” uncovered by her investigation. In this instance, we conclude that the statutory duty is clear and nondiscre-tionary, and the allegations and the evidence could support a finding that a reasonable official in Blinn’s position had no reasonable basis to submit a less than complete report including all of the exculpatory evidence. Accordingly, although Blinn was apparently discharged in bankruptcy, the derivative claim against the State remains. To state a claim against the State, however, plaintiff must establish that it is liable for the negligence of an employee “to the same extent as a private person would be liable.” 12 V.S.A. § 5601(a); Sabia v. State,
¶30. Plaintiff’s claims against Blinn consisted of malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. To state a common law claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a legal proceeding was instituted with malice and without probable cause, that it terminated in favor of the plaintiff, and that it resulted in damages to the plaintiff. Siliski v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
¶31. In light of these decisions, we have little difficulty finding a private analog for plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim against Blinn based on an alleged violation of the statutory duty, under 33 V.S.A. § 6906(c), to disclose exculpatory evidence uncovered during her investigation. Although the trial court here concluded otherwise, its ruling was based on a conclusory finding that the State’s duty to investigate allegations of abuse “is a uniquely public one — thrust upon the government as it is not upon private parties.” As we have explained, however, the purpose of the private analog provision “is not to bar ... suits claiming injuries based on the breach of duties performed by government employees performing government sеrvices,” but merely to prevent government from being visited with novel and unprecedented liabilities untethered from any comparable common law action. Sabia,
That portion of the judgment granting summary judgment and dismissing the claims against the State based on investigator Blinn’s alleged violation of a ministerial duty under S3 V.S. A § 6906(c) to disclose all evidence obtained is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings on this issue. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Notes
In FC, a facilitator holds a disabled person’s arm or hand over a keyboard and enables the disabled person to “communicate” by spelling оut words. The parties disputed the validity of FC. Plaintiff presented an expert’s affidavit stating that FC has been discredited and that clinical research shows that the content of FC is, “without exception,” determined by the facilitator, either consciously or subconsciously. Defendant Monahan agreed, for the purpose of her summary judgment motion, that the validity of FC was an issue about which the experts in the field disagreed.
At the time of the Board’s decision, the statute directed the Department to destroy records of unsubstantiated reports within ninety days. See 33 V.S.A. § 6906(e), (g) (1998). In 2002, those provisions were amended to require the Department to keep such records confidential for six years, and to destroy them thereafter so long as no court proceeding is brought pursuant to § 6906(c). See 2001, No. 135 (Adj. Sess.), § 5.
With respect to Monahan’s alleged duty to disclose under 33 V.S.A § 6906(c), the sole allegation set forth in plaintiff’s complaint was the failure to disclose information relating to the prior unsubstantiated complaint against M.B.
The parties did not raise, and we therefore do not address, issues relating to whether intentional torts such as malicious prosecution or intentional infliction of emotion distress may be committed “within the scope of employment” under 12 V.S.A. § 5601(a) for purposes of holding the State derivatively liable for the alleged misconduct of its employees. See Sweet v. Roy,