OPINION
Defendant Kandiyohi County obtained further review of a decision of the court of appeals construing Minn.Stat. § 626.557 (1994), the Vulnerable Adults Reporting Act, to allow a civil cause of action against the county for its alleged negligenсe in failing to timely investigate reports of abuse of a vulnerable adult or to intervene.
Hoppe v. Kandiyohi County,
No. CO-94-1627,
The parties have stipulated to the operative facts, and we summarizе those which are relevant to this narrow appeal. On February 21,1983, Georgia Hoppe executed a power of attorney appointing Paul Bengston, then an employee of the Green Lake State Bank whеre Hoppe was a depositor, as her attorney-in-fact. Bengston left the bank’s employ in 1987. Bengston’s involvement with Hoppe’s financial affairs escalated in June, 1989 when Hoppe was hospitalized and then enterеd the Glen Oaks Nursing Home. From that date to November, 1990, Bengston wrote numerous checks on Hoppe’s account, many of which named Bengston himself as payee, and later admitted that he forged Hoppe’s signature on the drafts.
In March, 1990, Allen Struck, a State Bank employee, became suspicious about Hoppe’s bank account activities and visited her on March 5,1990 at the nursing home to inquire as to the disposition of the considerable account proceeds, to that date approximately $100,000. When Hoppe was reluctant to discuss the matter and announced her complete trust in Bengston, Struck then contacted Sondra Anderson, an intake employee of Kandiyohi County Family Services, and related his suspicions: that Hoppe was incompetent and residing in a nursing home; that Bengston had full power of attorney and Hoppe’s full trust; and that over the preceding two оr three years, Bengston had drawn funds in excess of $100,000 from Hoppe’s account payable to himself.
In response and on that same day, Anderson contacted Chief Deputy Sheriff Roger Erickson, Department of Health Facilities social worker Carolee Carlson and Kandiyohi County Attorney Michael Lynch and explained the information provided by Struck. It was agreed, on Lynch’s suggestion, that a mental health employee would conduct a competency evaluation of Hoppe and ascertain whether the funds had been loaned by Hoppe to Bengston or had been converted to his own use; upon completion of that process, family services or the county attorney would advise the sheriff if intervention was required. The planning continued with a meeting between Karen Mohlin, a Kandiyohi County social worker, and Lynch, on March 16, 1990, and again on March 20, 1990 with Mohlin, Lynch and, although therе is some dispute, perhaps with Chief Deputy Erickson.
On October 19,1990, Mohlin and Dan Har-tog, a county family services employee, interviewed Hoppe for the first time. Mohlin recommended on that date, based upon that interview, that immediate action was necessary to protect the Hoppe estate and that a guardianship petition shоuld be filed. Har-tog and Lynch met on October 20, 1990 and Lynch agreed to contact Mohlin to commence guardianship proceedings.
On November 28,1990, a Vulnerable Adult Maltreatment report was prepared by County Family Servicеs employees and a special guardian, Russell Dykema, was appointed on November 30,1990. During the period from October 22, to November 28, 1990, eight additional checks were drawn in the total amount of $17,200, made payable to Beng-ston and allegedly signed by Hoppe.
The plaintiff commenced an action against Green Lake State Bank on June 5, 1992, alleging its negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. After settling that claim 1 in September, 1993, the plaintiff commenced this negligence action against Kandiyohi County. 2 Hoppe alleged that, as a result of the county’s failure to perform its investigatory and
intervention duties as required by the Minnesota Vulnerable Adults Reporting Act, more specifically, Minn.Stat. § 626.557, subd. 10(a) and (e), she sustained damages in the amount of $81,700, representing the amounts converted during the period from March 5, 1990 to November 28,1990. On the parties’ cross-motions, summary judgment was entered in favor of the county on the trial court’s determination that Minn.Stat. § 626.557 does not authorize a civil action for alleged negligence in the county’s performance of its investigatory and intervention responsibilities. On Hoppe’s appeal, 3 the court of appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Minnesota Statutes section 626.557, the Vulnerable Adults Reporting Act, which details responsibilities relating to the reporting of the maltreatment of vulnerable adults, is one of several reporting statutes designed to identify those individuals charged with the responsibility of reporting suspected neglect or abuse of statutorily defined protected persons. See Minn.Stat. § 626.52-.563 (1994). 4 It declares that it is the public policy of this state “to protect adults who, because of physical or mental disability or dependency on institutional services, are particularly vulnerable to abuse or neglect * * * ” and
to require the repоrting of suspected abuse or neglect of vulnerable adults, to provide for the voluntary reporting of abuse or neglect of vulnerable adults, to require the investigation of the reports, and to provide protectivе and counseling services in appropriate cases.
Minn.Stat. § 626.557, subd. 1 (1994).
There appears to be no dispute that by virtue of her age and physical and mental
The narrow question we address is whether the alleged negligence of county employees in conducting the investigation or in delaying the investigation gives rise to civil liability under the reporting statute, section 626.557. We note that despite the mandate to agencies and individuals to both report suspected abuse or neglect and then to investigate those reports, the legislation itself only defines the consequences of a failure to report as mandated — a criminal penalty is imposed for an intentional failure and civil liability is imposed for both negligent and intentional failure. Minn.Stat. § 626.557, subd.7. Neither the investigation nor the intervention mandate identifies consequences for a failure to act on reports. See, Minn. Stat. § 626.557, subd. 10(a), (c).
In reversing the summаry judgment entered in favor of the county, the court of appeals acknowledged that there was no express provision for imposing civil liability under the circumstances of record, but held, in application of this court’s decision in
Andrade v. Ellefson,
In
Andrade,
two minor children sustained serious injuries while attending a daycarе facility operated by the defendants Ellefson and inspected and supervised by Anoka County in assisting the Commissioner of Human Services in its licensing responsibility.
Here, unlike in
Andrade,
the legislature has spoken to the question of penalties or liability to be imposed with regard to the Vulnerable Adults Reporting Act and has not explicitly or by implication identified a civil cause of action for alleged negligent investigation or intervention.
See Larson v. Dunn,
Rеversed and summary judgment for Kandiyohi County reinstated.
Notes
. Hoppe, through her guardian Dykema, entered into a “Loan Receipt and Contract for Release Agreement” and "Letter Agreement” with the bank, obtaining $60,000 in settlement proсeeds designated as a "loan” in consideration for conditions not relevant here.
. The County asserted third-party claims against the bank and Bengston, but the parties stipulated to a partial dismissal with prejudice, agreeing thаt any judgment against the county would be reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to the bank.
. While her appeal was pending in the court of appeals, Hoppe died on October 8, 1994. In letters testamentary dаted January 6, 1995, her guardian Russell Dykema was authorized to act as her personal representative and he continues this appeal. See Minn.Stat. § 573.01 (1992).
. See, e.g., Minn.Stat. § 626.556, commonly referred to as the Child Abuse Reporting Act; Minn.Stat. § 626.52, the Suspicious Wounds Reporting Act; Minn.Stat. § 626.5531, the Crimes Motivated by Bias Reporting Act.