Background
Nazariah Brown, a young adult with complex medical needs, received services through Florida’s Agency for Persons with Disabilities after his family lost its housing. Crandall Medical Consulting and its employee, Braandon Davis, were assigned to coordinate Brown’s Medicaid-waiver services.
Brown’s guardian, and later the personal representative of his estate, sued, alleging that Crandall Medical and Davis failed to prepare a support plan, monitor Brown’s condition and services, meet his needs, and arrange an appropriate transfer. The defendants sought summary judgment under section 768.28(9)(a), arguing that they were state agents entitled to sovereign immunity.
The Court’s Holding
The First District reversed the denial of summary judgment and directed the circuit court to enter judgment for Crandall Medical and Davis. The undisputed evidence established that APD assigned them to Brown’s case, required APD training and forms, and monitored their work; that degree of retained control made them APD agents for purposes of section 768.28(9)(a).
The service agreement’s statement that Davis was an independent service provider and not an APD agent did not create a material factual dispute. Contractual labels are relevant but not dispositive, and Gainey offered no admissible evidence contradicting the defendants’ evidence of APD control. Because the complaint did not allege bad faith, malicious purpose, or wanton and willful disregard, the statutory immunity barred the claims.
Key Takeaways
- State-agency contractor status turns on the agency’s right to control the work, not merely a contract label.
- An opposing party must submit evidence creating a genuine factual dispute at summary judgment.
- Section 768.28(9)(a) protects qualifying state agents from being sued for acts within their governmental function absent the statute’s misconduct exceptions.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that sovereign-immunity issues should be resolved early when the record establishes agency control. Providers performing APD-assigned and APD-supervised waiver services may qualify as state agents even if their contracts call them independent service providers.