Background
Nazariah Brown was a young adult with complex medical needs. After his family lost its housing in 2022, the Florida Department of Children and Families helped place him on an emergency basis in the only facility then willing to accept him. The Agency for Persons with Disabilities later assumed responsibility for his services.
While Brown was at the facility, DCF’s Adult Protective Services office investigated two abuse-hotline reports and closed both as unsubstantiated. After Brown died, his estate’s personal representative alleged that DCF negligently trained and supervised APS staff, placed Brown in an unsuitable facility, and negligently investigated and prematurely closed the hotline reports. The circuit court denied DCF summary judgment based on disputed facts.
The Court’s Holding
The First District reversed and directed entry of summary final judgment for DCF. Sovereign immunity is a threshold legal question, the court held, and the trial court erred by treating it as dependent on factual disputes over whether DCF employees acted negligently.
The estate conceded that its negligent-training and supervision theories were barred. The court further held that the remaining theories were immune: investigation and enforcement duties under chapter 415 did not establish an unequivocal legislative waiver of immunity; the complaint did not establish a common-law duty owed individually to Brown; and placement and service-allocation decisions were discretionary planning-level functions protected by sovereign immunity.
Key Takeaways
- Sovereign immunity must be decided as a threshold legal issue, not submitted to a jury based on disputed negligence facts.
- Section 768.28 does not itself waive immunity for statutory claims based on alleged failures to investigate or enforce chapter 415 duties.
- Government placement and service-allocation decisions are discretionary planning-level functions immune from tort liability.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that claims against Florida agencies must clear the sovereign-immunity question before ordinary negligence issues are litigated. Allegations that agency staff inadequately investigated abuse reports or made poor placement decisions do not overcome immunity without a clear waiver or an actionable individual common-law duty.