Opinion ID: 2298525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Statute Properly Construed

Text: The goal of statutory construction is to determine and give effect to legislative intent. [16] Where a statute is ambiguous, it should be interpreted in a way that will promote its apparent purpose and harmonize it with the statutory scheme. [17] A statute is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible of different conclusions or interpretations or if a literal reading of the statute would lead to an unreasonable or absurd result not contemplated by the legislature. [18] Principles of statutory interpretation support the Superior Court's interpretation here. The Superior Court did not err in finding the statute ambiguous as to whether the reporting duty applied only to information obtained in a person's role as a medical service provider. Given the narrow class of professionals articulated in the statute, it is reasonable to infer that the legislature intended to target those persons positioned to learn of child abuse in the course of their work. The Superior Court had previously interpreted section 903 as applicable to a limited set of persons who obtain information in the course of their employment, and thus distinguished section 903 from section 908 which provides immunity to all persons participating in reports of child abuse. [19] Likewise, principles of statutory constructions instruct that the general phrase and any other person following the list of specifically enumerated professionals should be interpreted in light of that specific list. Noscitur a sociis provides that words grouped in a list should be given related meaning. [20] Likewise, the well-established principle ejusdem generis instructs that, where general language follows an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. [21] Here, it is reasonable to interpret the statutory phrase or any other person in light of the preceding, specific enumeration of persons who would likely learn of child abuse in the scope of their duties in schools, hospitals, and counseling services. Thus, the statute did not plainly cover any person who might learn of sexual abuse in any context. Moreover, this rule of construction supports the Superior Court's determination that the statute should not apply to those enumerated persons who learn of the abuse exclusively in a family context. Accordingly, we hold that the Superior Court properly determined that the Board of Nursing erred in its interpretation of title 16, section 903 for purposes of applying title 24, section 1922(a)(8) and Board Rule 10.4.1.