The West Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled in a case involving Tim Secrist and the West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) against Tammy Watkins, the administratrix of the estate of William McKinsey May. The court's decision, filed on November 4, 2026, addresses the issue of qualified immunity for state employees in wrongful death claims. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal protections available to state officials when making discretionary decisions in their official capacities.

The case began when Tammy Watkins filed a wrongful death claim against Secrist, an Adult Protective Services (APS) employee, and the DHS after her brother, William May, died. Watkins alleged that Secrist failed to take appropriate action regarding abuse and neglect allegations against May, which she claimed directly led to his death. The case was initially heard in the Circuit Court of Logan County, where the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity, prompting the appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court.

In the background of this case, William McKinsey May was a vulnerable adult living with his sister and her boyfriend. Allegations of abuse and neglect were reported to APS, leading to an investigation by Secrist. Throughout several visits to May's residence, Secrist noted improvements but ultimately closed the referral without further action. May died later from complications related to blunt force injuries, and Watkins contended that had Secrist acted differently, her brother would still be alive.

The West Virginia Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether Secrist was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the actions Secrist took during his investigation were discretionary and not ministerial, meaning he had the authority to make judgment calls based on the circumstances he encountered. The court stated, "The allegations against Mr. Secrist, including failing to remove Mr. May from the residence, closing the referral, and failing to contact law enforcement or court officials about this case, involved discretionary decisions that did not violate any clearly established right or law, and were not fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive."

Justice Wooton delivered the opinion of the court, emphasizing that the circuit court had erred by requiring a jury to determine whether Secrist's actions were ministerial or discretionary. The Supreme Court clarified that the question of qualified immunity should be determined by the court as a matter of law, rather than by a jury. The court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to grant the motions to dismiss.

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving state employees and their qualified immunity. It reinforces the principle that state officials are protected from liability when their actions are within the scope of their discretionary duties, provided they do not violate clearly established laws or rights. This decision may limit the ability of individuals to pursue claims against state employees in similar circumstances, as it sets a precedent for how courts will evaluate claims of qualified immunity.

Looking ahead, the ruling in this case could influence similar cases involving state agencies and their employees, particularly in the context of adult protective services and other governmental functions. While the decision can be appealed, the court's clear stance on qualified immunity may make it challenging for Watkins to pursue further legal action against Secrist and the DHS. Details regarding any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.