Opinion ID: 2334466
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Public Duty Immunity Analysis

Text: Dr. Howenstine has also met the requirements for public duty immunity. The test is simply a determination of whether the person owed a duty to the public or to a specific individual. Green v. Denison, 738 S.W.2d 861, 866 (Mo. banc 1987). The public duty doctrine shields employees from liability, but it also shields public officers, and the governmental bodies that employ them, from liability. Heins Implement Co. v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm'n, 859 S.W.2d 681, 694 (Mo. banc 1993). The purpose of the health center is to minimize the effects and introduction of tuberculosis and other similar diseases into the community. Secs. 192.020, 205.050; see sec. 205.060. The clinic contractually assumed the state's obligation to provide tuberculosis treatment. 19 C.S.R. 10-1.010(4). As medical director, Dr. Howenstine implemented collaborative practice arrangements for delivery of tuberculosis and other population-based services. Her directorship duties are not particularized to any patient, but instead to the public. Prior to September 19, 2000, she owed no particularized duty to Mr. Muren. Her acts to improve the operations, treatment and training at the clinic were for the public at large and not specifically for Mr. Muren. Dr. Howenstine did provide treatment to Mr. Muren on and after September 19, 2000. This treatment would not be subject to public duty immunity because it was particularized to Mr. Muren. However, no allegations of negligence were made regarding this treatment. Dr. Howenstine is immune from suit because her duties as medical director ran only to the public.