Appeal
from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District, Anchorage, Paul E. Olson, Judge. Superior
Court No. 3AN-12-07478 CI.
Kevin
G. Brady, Brady Law Office, Anchorage, for Appellant.
Ali
Moser Rahoi, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Craig
W. Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before:
Stowers, Chief Justice, Fabe, Maassen, and Bolger, Justices.
[Winfree, Justice, not participating.].
OPINION
BOLGER,
Justice.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Timothy
G. asserted in the superior court that the statute of
limitations had been tolled on his claim against the Office
of Children's Services because he was mentally
incompetent following years of abuse by his stepfather. The
superior court held an evidentiary hearing on this issue and
concluded that Timothy had failed to prove that he was
incompetent. On appeal, Timothy argues that the superior
court should have ruled in his favor if he produced more than
a scintilla of evidence to support his assertion. But we
conclude that the superior court applied the proper burden of
proof and the proper test for competency, and that the court
did not clearly err in finding that Timothy did not prove his
incompetence.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Timothy
G.[1] alleges he was abused by his
stepfather repeatedly between 1997 and 2006. In 2006, Timothy
reported the abuse to his mother. She took Timothy and his
four siblings to a shelter, sought a protective order against
the stepfather, and instituted divorce proceedings. The
Office of Children's Services (OCS) then substantiated
the report of harm, removed the children from their
mother's care, and placed them in foster care.
On May
25, 2012, Timothy filed a complaint naming OCS and his
stepfather as defendants.[2] He sought compensatory damages from
OCS, claiming that " [a]s a direct and proximate
consequence of [OCS's] breach of [its] dut[y] of care,
[he] suffered physical injury, psychological and emotional
injury and distress, psychological torment, torture and
sexual abuse, pain and suffering, and resultant loss of
earning capacity." Timothy alleged that OCS had
investigated at least ten reports of harm involving him and
his siblings, but had taken no action.
In
response, OCS moved under Alaska Civil Rule 12(b)(6) to
dismiss Timothy's claims as time-barred. It argued that
the applicable statute of limitations required Timothy's
claim to be filed within two years of its accrual;
[3]
although the statute of limitations was tolled during
Timothy's minority,[4] he turned 18 on May 27, 2009, but
did not file his complaint until nearly three years later.
Timothy
replied that he was incompetent by reason of mental
disability and that the statute therefore remained tolled
after his eighteenth birthday.[5] He stated that he had
been diagnosed with " severe post[-]traumatic stress
disorder, ADHD, [b]i-polar disorder, and obsessive compulsive
disorder," stemming from his abuse at the hands of his
stepfather.
Along
with his opposition to OCS's motion to dismiss, Timothy
submitted an affidavit from his friend Sarah G. describing
his mental disability. Sarah met Timothy in 2008, and in
2010, when she learned he was homeless, she invited him to
live in her home. She asserted that " based upon [her]
personal involvement with [Timothy], his treating mental
health care professionals[,] and various state and federal
agencies, [it was her belief] that Timothy suffers from a
mental disability."
The
superior court treated OCS's motion to dismiss as a
motion for summary judgment because in ruling on it the court
considered matters outside of the pleadings, including
Sarah's affidavit and OCS's responses to the
affidavit.[6] The court found that although
Sarah's affidavit would be insufficient to establish
Timothy's incompetency, " it [was] sufficient to
overcome the low threshold that applies at the summary
judgment stage." Accordingly, the court denied OCS's
motion.
The
court scheduled an evidentiary hearing to resolve the statute
of limitations dispute, noting that the parties had raised
" preliminary questions of fact that should be decided
by the court." The court stated that at this hearing,
" [t]he burden [would] be on . . . [Timothy] to
establish that he was incompetent as contemplated by AS
[]09.10.140(a) . . . during the relevant period."
The
superior court held the hearing on September 4, 2014. Two
witnesses testified on Timothy's behalf: Sarah and
Timothy's former psychiatrist. Sarah described her role
in Timothy's life as an " advocate." She
testified that she tried to help Timothy find work, complete
high school, and obtain disability benefits and counseling
and that she routinely transported him to appointments and
court appearances. Timothy signed a medical release giving
Sarah access to his medical records, and she sometimes sat in
on his counseling sessions. She testified that without her
help, Timothy would not make it to his court dates or
appointments: " He misses court dates[; ] he can't
remember them[; ] . . . he doesn't have the ability to
keep track of [his appointments]."
Timothy's
former psychiatrist testified as an expert in psychiatry; he
treated Timothy from approximately 2007 to 2013. According to
the psychiatrist, " [Timothy] was diagnosed with
[p]ost[-][t]raumatic [s]tress [d]isorder and his case was a
very complicated case dealing with sexual abuse and sexual
trauma. [Timothy] . . . also had depression and anxiety . . .
[and] [b]i-polar disorder." The psychiatrist also
verified the accuracy of a letter he wrote in 2012 to support
Timothy's claim for disability benefits in which he
stated: " [T]he trauma that he has suffered is one of
the most egregious cases I have ever had to manage." The
psychiatrist specifically testified that he did not believe
Timothy was capable of understanding his legal rights or
advocating for himself without assistance.
OCS
called Timothy as a witness. He stated that in 2010, when he
testified before a grand jury about his stepfather's
abuse, he understood that what his stepfather had done was
wrong. Timothy testified that after the grand jury
proceedings he " just kind of wanted to walk away from
it," but Sarah encouraged him to file this lawsuit. He
acknowledged that, although he had appeared in court several
times before to face criminal charges and to obtain a
divorce, he had never claimed to be incompetent and had
expressly stated that he understood his legal rights. And he
testified that he felt comfortable asking clarifying
questions to the judge during those proceedings if he did not
understand a particular point.
On
cross-examination, Timothy testified that Sarah helped him
with most of his criminal cases and that although he
represented himself in his divorce, Sarah helped him
understand and fill out the paperwork. He also testified that
he frequently missed court dates when he was not living with
Sarah, for a variety of reasons. Timothy stated: " [A]ll
my other rides fall through, people don't pick me up, I
miss the bus[,] . . . I forget times . . . or my phone will
die and I won't . . . make it in time." Finally, he
testified that although he is " reluctant to tell
society and average people [about his mental disability], . .
. [he is] not afraid to . . . tell [courts, doctors, and
professional people] about [his] issues," and he is
" not afraid to ask . . . for help when needed."
On
September 12, 2014, the superior court issued an order
granting OCS's motion to dismiss, finding that
Timothy's mental condition did not toll the statute of
limitations. The court noted that the standard for mental
incompetency is " whether a person could know or
understand his legal rights sufficiently well to manage his
personal affairs," and the court found that Timothy had
not met his burden to show his incompetency during the period
following his eighteenth birthday. The court found it telling
that during Timothy's prior interactions with the legal
system, both as a plaintiff and as a defendant, " [h]e
repeatedly asserted his competence to courts . . . and
represented himself." While the court was careful not to
" minimize the trauma . . . [Timothy] endured or his
diagnosis of bi-polar and ...