The Social Services Agency Liability Act (SSALA); Applicability of the SSALA; Immunity under the SSALA; MCL 691.1635(3) & (4); “Gross negligence” (MCL 691.1633(b)); Rule 400.4127(4) of the Michigan Administrative Code; Piercing the corporate veil; Causation & foreseeability; Negligence or gross negligence; Negligent hiring or retention; Comparative fault

The court concluded that the SSALA applied “and that the evidence established a genuine issue of material fact regarding gross negligence,” precluding immunity under the SSALA. Also, questions of material fact existed for trial as to “piercing the corporate veil, causation and foreseeability, negligent hiring or retention, and comparative fault.” Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s orders in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Defendant-SJJS operates a home that “houses boys and girls ages 12 through 17. The decedent, 15-year-old JQ, became a resident [] after engaging in criminality and leaving a prior facility. JQ committed suicide by using a sheet to hang himself from a vent in his room.” Plaintiffs, his parents, alleged “that staff members at the facility failed to properly supervise residents and falsified room-monitoring logs to reflect room checks of residents that were not performed as required under state of Michigan regulations. Plaintiffs further asserted that defendants’ failure to monitor residents made it possible for JQ to take his own life. [They] filed this negligence action against SJJS and its parent company,” defendant-SHS. The court found that the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to “whether the actions and inactions of staff members amounted to gross negligence such that SJJS is not immune under the SSALA.” The evidence supported “plaintiffs’ allegations that staff members failed to conduct room checks at varying intervals not to exceed 15 minutes as required under Rule 400.4127(4) notwithstanding that the purpose of the room checks was to ensure resident safety. Further, JQ’s journal entries indicate that he became increasingly more depressed and anxious as the days passed. The testimony also establishes a genuine issue of material fact regarding youth-care workers being trained to fill out the pink sheets at the beginning of their shifts before the room checks could possibly be made, that some supervisors also prefilled out the pink sheets, and that some workers forged their supervisor’s signature.” Further, witnesses “testified that they did not know about JQ’s history of depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and self-harm, and, if they had known, they could have been more watchful of him. In fact, [one] testified that if she had been informed of JQ’s psychiatric history, his suicide could have been prevented. Staff members testified that they were also unaware that JQ had been cutting himself, although [another resident] was aware and testified that JQ’s cuts were visible. Therefore, at a minimum, there” was a genuine issue of material fact as to “whether the evidence demonstrates ‘a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury will result.’” Thus, the court held that “the trial court properly denied summary disposition with respect to immunity under the SSALA.”