Background
Two-year-old G.B. died in March 2015 from starvation and blunt-force trauma inflicted by her parents. Her estate brought wrongful-death and survivorship claims against three Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services caseworkers: Lumadi Lavusa, Shamara Stephens, and Kassi Setty.
The evidence, viewed in the estate’s favor, showed repeated warnings about G.B.’s nutrition and development. Lavusa encountered food insecurity, observed G.B. as underweight and unwell, and closed the case without confirming medical information. Stephens knew G.B. had been hospitalized for failure to thrive, that her mother had admitted restricting food, and that hospital personnel wanted a safe discharge plan. Setty knew of the failure-to-thrive diagnosis but allegedly did not adequately review the file, assess G.B.’s condition, or verify information from medical and service providers.
The Court’s Holding
The First District reversed summary judgment for the caseworkers and remanded. It held that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether each caseworker acted recklessly, which would remove statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b).
The court clarified that recklessness does not require proof that an employee actually and subjectively knew of the risk. Recklessness may be shown by conscious disregard of, or indifference to, a known or obvious risk of harm that is unreasonable under the circumstances and substantially greater than negligence. A jury could find that the caseworkers disregarded obvious risks arising from G.B.’s severe weight loss, food insecurity, failure-to-thrive diagnosis, and reported concerns of neglect.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio public employees may lose statutory immunity for recklessness, not merely negligence.
- An obvious risk can support recklessness even without proof of an employee’s actual subjective awareness.
- Failures to investigate medical concerns, verify caregiver statements, or respond to documented child-safety warnings can present jury questions.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Ohio Supreme Court’s child-welfare immunity framework to a detailed factual record and emphasizes that courts may not resolve disputed inferences in favor of caseworkers at summary judgment. It leaves the ultimate recklessness determination to a jury.