## Facts

- Ruth Kay Wall and Sandra Slavik were psychiatric patients diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder (DID) and treated for years by psychiatrist William Routt.
- Wall and Slavik later alleged Routt sexually abused them during therapy sessions, sometimes involving hypnosis or dissociative states; they obtained judgments against Routt for abuse.
- During later treatment, disclosures of alleged abuse emerged through communications attributed to “alters,” including a disclosure during Wall’s 1992 hospitalization at Fairview-Riverside.
- Wall and Slavik sued Fairview Hospital entities and psychiatric nurse Kathy House, alleging a failure to report suspected abuse under Minnesota’s Vulnerable Adults Act (VAA), and related negligence-based theories against the hospital premised on similar nonreporting.
- House worked with Routt in clinical settings, including participating in rounds and treatment meetings and serving as a liaison with other therapists.
- Evidence offered to show House had reason to suspect abuse included her awareness of concerns that Routt drank alcohol and her alleged knowledge of boundary violations involving another patient (emotional disclosures, crying, hugging, and kissing).
- Wall and Slavik did not directly tell House about sexual abuse; House was not present during any alleged abuse.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to plaintiffs, permitted a reasonable jury to find House (and thus Fairview) had “reasonable cause to suspect” abuse of vulnerable adults under the VAA, triggering a mandatory duty to report.
2. Whether the district court properly granted a directed verdict for House and Fairview on the VAA claim because reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion on the absence of “reasonable cause to suspect.”

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the district court’s directed verdict for House and Fairview on the VAA claim.
- The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that House or Fairview had “reasonable cause to suspect” Routt was abusing Wall or Slavik as defined by the VAA.
- Because the statutory reporting trigger was not met, plaintiffs’ VAA-based failure-to-report theory could not go to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- “Reasonable cause to suspect” under the VAA is an objective standard assessed from the facts known to the alleged mandatory reporter.
- Evidence of unprofessional conduct, boundary problems, or personal issues (including alcohol concerns) does not, without more, establish reasonable cause to suspect statutory “abuse.”
- A directed verdict is proper when, even with evidence viewed favorably to the nonmoving party, reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion on a material element.
- Courts may decide as a matter of law that the evidentiary threshold to trigger a statutory reporting duty has not been met, removing the claim from the jury.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that plaintiffs’ proof showed, at most, knowledge of questionable professional boundaries and rumors of alcohol use, not facts that would lead a reasonable person to suspect vulnerable-adult abuse; therefore, the VAA reporting duty did not arise and the directed verdict for the nurse and hospital was affirmed.


Wall v. Fairview Hosp. & Healthcare Servs., 584 N.W.2d 395 (Minn. 1998)