Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): center’s investigation and disciplinary decisions involved the type of legislative or executive policy decisions that we believe must be protected by discretionary immunity. The center’s decisions did not simply require the application of professional judgment to a given set of facts, but were necessarily entwined in a layer of policy-making that exceeded the mere application of rules to facts. Appellants argue that respondents are not immune from liability for the center’s failure to convey certain information to the Department of Human Services to assist in the department’s investigation of appellants’ allegations against Gary Grimm because this failure to convey information was a ministerial, rather than a discretionary, act. See S.L.D. v. Kranz, 498 N.W.2d 47, 55 (Minn.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the circumstances here, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the record does not show that the statement to the social worker was for medical treatment because the social worker testified that he questioned the child to determine whether he needed to notify child protective services of a case of suspected child abuse (B) holding trial court was proper in admitting a doctors testimony that a delay between the occurrence of an incident of child sexual abuse and the childs revelation of the incident was the usual pattern of conduct for victims of child sexual abuse (C) holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse (D) holding that county was not immune from liability for continued sexual abuse of child resulting from social workers failure to convey information to supervisor about report of child abuse stating that failure to communicate did not involve planning decisions or the balancing of policy objectives (E) holding a social worker treating the child was permitted to testify to statements the child made about the abuse including the victims identification of the perpetrator because the statements were necessary to the treatment of ensuring the continued safety of the child
Output (English): holding trial court was proper in admitting a doctors testimony that a delay between the occurrence of an incident of child sexual abuse and the childs revelation of the incident was the usual pattern of conduct for victims of child sexual abuse