Dept. Health & Social Services v. Sheppard, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, DELAWARE DIVISION OF ALCOHOLISM DRUG ABUSE AND DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH, DELAWARE PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, VINCENT P. MECONI, RENATA J. HENRY, MICHAEL TALMO AND DIANE BIGHAM, PH.D. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants Below, ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) LARON SHEPPARD, Individually, ) and as Administrator of the ESTATE OF ) CAMELLIA N. WASHINGTON, and ) LARON SHEPPARD, Individually and ) as next friend of CAMERON SHEPPARD, ) a minor, ) ) Plaintiff Below, ) Appellee. ) No. 176, 2004 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 03C-01-096 Submitted: November 17, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 10th day of December 2004, it appears to the Court that: 1. We granted this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 421 to determine the following two questions certified by the Superior Court: (1) Whether 10 Del. C. § 4001 constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity in this case involving allegations of gross negligence where the State has not provided insurance coverage; and (2) Whether an action for money damages may be maintained against the State and its agencies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 After careful review, we conclude that 10 Del. C. §4001, part of the State Tort Claims Act, does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity where the State has not provided insurance coverage, even where a party alleges gross negligence. We further conclude that an action for monetary damages may not be maintained against the State or its agencies pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §1983. 2. The underlying action stems from the suicide of Camellia Washington, an individual in the care of the Delaware Psychiatric Center. Laron Sheppard, acting in both his individual capacity and as the administrator of Washington s estate, instituted this action, alleging gross negligence, civil rights violations, and various other theories of liability. The State filed a motion to dismiss and asserted that sovereign immunity barred the claims as a matter of law. In December 2003, a Superior Court judge denied the State s motion. certification followed. 1 DHSS v. Sheppard, Del. Supr., No. 176, 2004, Berger, J. (June 3, 2004) (ORDER). 2 Sheppard v. DHSS, Del. Super., C.A. No. 03C-01-096, (May 13, 2004) (ORDER). 2 This 3. The Court must review certified questions in the context in which they arise.3 We review questions concerning the applicability or construction of a statute de novo.4 4. In Pauley v. Reinhoehl, we articulated a two-prong test to be used in determining whether sovereign immunity would bar an action under Delaware law.5 Under Pauley, a plaintiff must show that (1) the State has waived the defense of sovereign immunity for the actions mentioned in the complaint; and (2) the State Tort Claims Act does not bar the action. 6 The defense of sovereign immunity only can be waived by an act of the General Assembly that expressly manifests an intention to do so.7 An example of an express intention to waive sovereign immunity can be found in 18 Del. C. § 6511, which waives sovereign immunity where actions complained of are covered by the state insurance program.8 3 State v. Anderson, 697 A.2d 379, 382 (Del. 1997), citing Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927, 931 (Del. 1993). 4 State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1199 (Del. 2002). 5 848 A.2d 569 (Del. 2004). Id. at 573 (citation omitted). 6 7 DEL. CONST. art. I § 9; Pauley, 848 A.2d at 573, citing Shellhorn & Hill, Inc. v. State, 187 A.2d 71, 74 (Del. 1962). 8 Pauley, 848 A.2d at 573, citing Doe v. Cates, 499 A.2d 1175, 1177 (Del. 1985). 3 5. Grossly negligent acts per se and the State Tort Claims comes into play only after an express intent to waive sovereign immunity has been identified. An insurance-dependent provision, 18 Del. C. § 6511 does not waive sovereign immunity under these circumstances because there was no insurance in place to cover the alleged loss. Similarly, the Mental-Health Patients Bill of Rights does not expressly waive sovereign immunity because the statute does not contain any language that expresses that intention explicitly or implicitly.9 6. We, therefore, answer no to the first certified question. 7. An action for money damages may not be maintained against a state or its agencies pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 because neither a state nor its agencies are considered persons for the purpose of such an action.10 8. We, therefore, answer no to the second certified question. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that both certified questions of law are answered in the negative. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief Justice 9 See 16 Del. C. § 5161-5162. Lapides v. Bd. of Regents, 535 U.S. 613, 617 (2002), citing Will v. Michigan Dep t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); see also Neeley v. Samis, 183 F. Supp. 2d 672, 678 (D. Del. 2002) (reiterating that states are not persons for the purpose of § 1983 claims for monetary damages). 10 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
