Opinion ID: 3196799
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: APSA Claim

Text: Martin’s final contention is that he is entitled to civil damages under the APSA because Leon County sheriff officers failed to notify the DCF of the suspected exploitation of Mary Martin. The APSA states that a law enforcement officer “who knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that a vulnerable adult has been or is being abused, neglected, or exploited shall immediately report such knowledge or suspicion” to the DCF, Fla. Stat. § 415.1034(a), and that a law enforcement official who knowingly and willfully fails to report a case of known or suspected abuse may be subject to criminal penalties, id. § 415.111(1). But the APSA provides no civil remedy for violation of this provision. Mora v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 710 So. 2d 633, 633 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (“[A] violation of the reporting requirement . . . does not result in a civil cause of action.”); see also Fla. Stat. § 415.1111 (explaining the circumstances under which a civil action may be brought pursuant to the APSA). Under the APSA, a vulnerable adult who has been “abused, neglected, or exploited” has a private cause of action against the perpetrator of the abuse. Fla. Stat. § 415.1111. Such an action may also be brought by the vulnerable adult’s guardian or authorized representative on behalf of the vulnerable adult. Id. 1967) (“[N]o state is at liberty to abridge the rights of persons not subject to its jurisdiction by indiscriminate arrests effected beyond its territorial limits . . . .”); see also Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349, 1352-53 (10th Cir. 1990). As Martin never contends that Leon County officers acted outside of Florida’s territorial jurisdiction, these cases have no relevance to his claims. 14 Case: 15-12418 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 15 of 16 Martin was not entitled to civil damages under the APSA. Liberally construing his amended complaint, Martin alleged only that Leon County sheriff officers violated the APSA by failing to notify the DCF of the suspected exploitation of Martin’s mother. The APSA, however, does not provide Martin with a civil remedy for the officers’ failure to report, Mora, 710 So. 2d at 633, and we will not imply a cause of action under the APSA where Florida’s courts and legislature have declined to do so. Furthermore, the APSA provides Martin with no cause of action for any exploitation his mother may have suffered. It provides a cause of action only to an exploited vulnerable adult against the “perpetrator” of the abuse. Mora, 710 So. 2d at 634 (detailing that the APSA is only intended to subject “actual perpetrators of abuse to civil penalties”); see also, Fla. Stat. § 415.1111. Martin does not allege that any of the Department’s officers abused or exploited his elderly mother. On the contrary, in this case, the only allegations of elderly exploitation were leveled against Martin himself. What’s more, although Martin correctly points out that the APSA allows for the guardian or other authorized representative of a vulnerable adult to bring a civil action on behalf of the vulnerable adult, see Fla. Stat. § 415.1111, Martin seeks not to recover damages on behalf of his mother, but rather, to recover damages on his own behalf. Accordingly, the district court did not err by dismissing Martin’s APSA claims. 15 Case: 15-12418 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 16 of 16