The South Carolina Court of Appeals has rejected a social worker’s claim that the quasi-judicial immunity provided to Guardians ad Litem should have precluded a disciplinary action against her.
The appeals court found that extending quasi-judicial immunity to disciplinary proceedings would hamper the State Board of Social Work Examiners’ ability to protect the public.
The court also ruled that the board clearly has subject matter jurisdiction to discipline a social worker for her actions as a Guardian ad Litem, a court-appointed advocate for children during a legal proceeding.
In issuing its ruling, the appeals court upheld a decision by the Social Work Examiners Board to sanction Karen Forman and limit her role as a social worker going forward.
The Court of Appeals’ Nov. 9 decision in Forman v. S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation sets a marker for the type of arguments in disciplinary action cases that are not likely to sway the appeals court’s judges.
Forman’s attorney, Thomas McDow of McDow & Urquhart in Rock Hill, declined to comment on the decision beyond saying he “disagreed with some of the court’s conclusions.” But he indicated his client might petition to have the South Carolina Supreme Court take up the case.
Alleged fraud
Forman’s disciplinary problems stem from her work on two family court private custody actions.
Forman, who has a master’s degree in social work, has been a licensed master social worker since the early 1990s. She has also worked as a Guardian ad Litem in more than 150 cases.
But in the two custody cases in question, Forman allegedly made recommendations to the family court without interviewing all of the parties involved. Forman also allegedly failed to conduct a full investigation of all relevant documents and allegations, as well as failing to provide a report supporting all of her conclusions. Court records say Forman was accused of billing for services she had not performed and had failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
The Social Work Examiners Board ultimately determined that Forman had committed fraud by claiming she had performed work she had not done. The board barred Forman from any future Guardian ad Litem roles. Forman is also prohibited from all independent practice and is required to be supervised within a recognized setting. Additionally, Forman must submit regular reports from her supervisors for the next two years.
Ill-fated appeals
Forman moved to challenge the disciplinary sanctions against her, filing an appeal with the Administrative Law Court.
Forman maintained that she should have been provided with quasi-judicial immunity because of her work as a Guardian ad Litem. Forman also argued the Social Work Examiners Board lacked the authority to discipline her for her work as a Guardian ad Litem.
The Administrative Law Court agreed to reverse the board’s finding that Forman was required to disclose her prior discipline in her Guardian ad Litem affidavit. The court also found that the board’s order was unclear whether that finding affected the sanctions. In reaching that finding, the court remanded Forman’s case to the board.
But Forman’s victory was short lived.
The board upheld its earlier sanctions against Forman, and the Administrative Law Court affirmed the disciplinary order.
Public protection
Forman’s arguments also failed to sway the Court of Appeals.
In making her case that Guardians ad Litem should be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, Forman cited the South Carolina Supreme Court’s 1997 ruling in Fleming v. Asbill.
But the appeals court determined the Fleming case applied only to tort actions, not disciplinary proceedings.
Writing for the court, Judge Thomas Huff also noted that numerous courts across the country have held that disciplinary proceedings are different from civil cases. Huff went on to say the Social Work Examiner must have the ability to issue disciplinary decisions as a way to protect the public.
“Extension of quasi-judicial immunity to a licensee would hamper the board in its execution of this vital public function,” Thomas said.
Thomas’ opinion also said the General Assembly authorized the board to investigate and discipline individuals licensed by the board, rejecting another of Forman’s arguments.
The appeals court also held that Forman had failed to demonstrate that the board had made incorrect findings of fact.
“We conclude substantial evidence exists in the record to support the board’s findings Forman committed fraud and represented she performed services that she had not performed,” Thomas said.
The Department of Labor was represented by Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Prentiss Shealey and Megan Flannery, an attorney with the department.
Shealey and Flannery did not respond to requests for comment.
The 10-page opinion is Forman v. South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-098-16). An opinion digest is available at sclawyersweelkly.com.
Follow Jeff Jeffrey on Twitter at @SCLWJeffrey