Title: Dept. Health & Social Services v. Sheppard, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 176, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 10, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT ) 
OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, )  No. 176, 2004 
DELAWARE DIVISION OF  
 
) 
ALCOHOLISM DRUG ABUSE AND 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH, )  of the State of Delaware in 
DELAWARE PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, 
)  and for New Castle County 
VINCENT P. MECONI, RENATA J.  
) 
HENRY, MICHAEL TALMO AND   
)  C.A. No. 03C-01-096 
DIANE BIGHAM, PH.D. 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
) 
 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
LARON SHEPPARD, Individually,  
) 
and as Administrator of the ESTATE OF 
) 
CAMELLIA N. WASHINGTON, and 
 
) 
LARON SHEPPARD, Individually and 
) 
as next friend of CAMERON SHEPPARD, ) 
a minor, 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  November 17, 2004 
Decided:  December 10, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 10th day of December 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
 
2
 
1. 
We granted this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
421 to determine the following two questions certified by the Superior Court: 
(1)  Whether 10 Del. C. § 4001 constitutes a waiver of sovereign 
immunity in this case involving allegations of gross negligence where 
the State has not provided insurance coverage; and   
 
(2)  Whether an action for money damages may be maintained against 
the State and its agencies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 
 
After careful review, we conclude that 10 Del. C. §4001, part of the State Tort 
Claims Act, does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity where the State 
has not provided insurance coverage, even where a party alleges gross negligence.  
We further conclude that an action for monetary damages may not be maintained 
against the State or its agencies pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §1983. 
 
2. 
The underlying action stems from the suicide of Camellia 
Washington, an individual in the care of the Delaware Psychiatric Center.  Laron 
Sheppard, acting in both his individual capacity and as the administrator of 
Washington’s estate, instituted this action, alleging gross negligence, civil rights 
violations, and various other theories of liability.  The State filed a motion to 
dismiss and asserted that sovereign immunity barred the claims as a matter of law.  
In December 2003, a Superior Court judge denied the State’s motion.  This 
certification followed.   
                                                 
1 DHSS v. Sheppard, Del. Supr., No. 176, 2004, Berger, J. (June 3, 2004) (ORDER).   
 
2 Sheppard v. DHSS, Del. Super., C.A. No. 03C-01-096, (May 13, 2004) (ORDER).  
 
3
 
3. 
The Court must review certified questions in the context in which they 
arise.3  We review questions concerning the applicability or construction of a 
statute de novo.4   
4. 
In Pauley v. Reinhoehl, we articulated a two-prong test to be used in 
determining whether sovereign immunity would bar an action under Delaware 
law.5  Under Pauley, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the State has waived the 
defense of sovereign immunity for the actions mentioned in the complaint; and (2) 
the State Tort Claims Act does not bar the action.”6  The defense of sovereign 
immunity only can be waived by an act of the General Assembly that expressly 
manifests an intention to do so.7  An example of an express intention to waive 
sovereign immunity can be found in 18 Del. C. § 6511, which waives sovereign 
immunity where actions complained of are covered by the state insurance 
program.8  
                                                 
3 State v. Anderson, 697 A.2d 379, 382 (Del. 1997), citing Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927, 931 
(Del. 1993).   
 
4 State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1199 (Del. 2002).    
 
5 848 A.2d 569 (Del. 2004). 
6 Id. at 573 (citation omitted).  
 
7 DEL. CONST. art. I § 9; Pauley, 848 A.2d at 573, citing Shellhorn & Hill, Inc. v. State, 187 A.2d 
71, 74 (Del. 1962).  
 
8 Pauley, 848 A.2d at 573, citing Doe v. Cates, 499 A.2d 1175, 1177 (Del. 1985). 
 
 
4
 
5. 
Grossly negligent acts per se and the State Tort Claims comes into 
play only after an express intent to waive sovereign immunity has been identified.  
An insurance-dependent provision, 18 Del. C. § 6511 does not waive sovereign 
immunity under these circumstances because there was no insurance in place to 
cover the alleged loss.  Similarly, the Mental-Health Patients’ Bill of Rights does 
not expressly waive sovereign immunity because the statute does not contain any 
language that expresses that intention explicitly or implicitly.9 
 
6. 
We, therefore, answer “no” to the first certified question. 
 
7. 
An action for money damages may not be maintained against a state 
or its agencies pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 because neither a state nor its agencies 
are considered “persons” for the purpose of such an action.10 
 
8. 
We, therefore, answer “no” to the second certified question. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that both certified questions of 
law are answered in the negative. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
9   See 16 Del. C. § 5161-5162.  
10 Lapides v. Bd. of Regents, 535 U.S. 613, 617 (2002), citing Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State 
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); see also Neeley v. Samis, 183 F. Supp. 2d 672, 678 (D. Del. 
2002) (reiterating that states are not persons for the purpose of § 1983 claims for monetary 
damages).