Did the Court Overlook LPCC's Role in Case Dismissal?
In a Minnesota civil case dismissed on summary judgment, questions have arisen about whether the court properly considered the involvement of a licensed mental health professional whose actions were central to the plaintiffs’ claims. The counselor, a Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor (LPCC) with a master’s degree in community counseling, had prior knowledge of family dynamics, including concerns about emotional abuse and estrangement. Despite the court’s acknowledgment of her background during earlier proceedings, the final summary judgment order made no reference to her licensure, training, or heightened responsibilities. This raises concerns that her professional role—and the implications it carried—were overlooked in the court’s decision to dismiss the case.
Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze Judge Miller’s order in light of this information. The specific AI query was:
Consider a Minnesota civil case before Otter Tail District Court Judge Kevin Miller. I have uploaded Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order. Analyze this order in light of the following information:
- Lisa-Stevenson-Allen is a Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor (LPCC) with extensive education, training, and experience, a “Master’s in Community Counseling”.
- Lisa was aware that Marie had moved away from home while still in high school, although she did not know Marie’s history at that time.
- Lisa learned some of Marie’s history, including Marie’s fear of her father, following Sean’s first contact with him.
- According to the hearing transcript, Judge Miller was aware of Lisa’s involvement in Sean’s action to contact Marie’s estranged father and Lisa’s education, experience, training, and occupation at least as far back as May 2, 2022. (Doc. 235, Tr: 3:15 – 6:12.) I have uploaded this transcript. Analyze this section.
- I have also uploaded the summary judgment hearing transcript. Analyze and consider this information.
Although presented in an earlier motion, determine whether Judge Miller factored this information into his summary judgment order and what the significance of this information was to Plaintiffs’ claims.
Did Lisa have increased responsibility or culpability because of her background and training?
ChatGPT (AI) Analysis
Based on the review of Judge Kevin Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order and the May 2, 2022 hearing transcript, it does not appear that Judge Miller explicitly considered Lisa Stevenson-Allen’s education, training, or professional responsibilities as an LPCC in his legal analysis or decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. Here’s a detailed breakdown:
1. Lisa’s Professional Background and Role
You highlighted that:
- Lisa is a Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor (LPCC).
- She has a Master’s in Community Counseling and professional experience with abuse victims.
- She had knowledge of Marie’s estrangement from her father and eventually learned of Marie’s fear of him.
This information is corroborated in the hearing transcript, where Judge Miller acknowledged Lisa’s professional background and involvement, stating:
“…isn’t it part and parcel that that’s what her education is. So, whatever answer she would give… she’s harkening back to her experience and education in that answer.” (Tr. 6:12)
This exchange shows the judge understood that Lisa’s answers—even if not framed explicitly as expert opinions—would naturally be informed by her education and training. Yet, this understanding appears to have had no meaningful impact on the court’s subsequent legal findings.
2. Judge Miller’s Summary Judgment Order
Nowhere in the 12-page memorandum did Judge Miller discuss:
- Lisa’s professional licensure,
- her training or experience, or
- whether those factors heightened her responsibility or culpability.
Instead, Lisa’s name surfaces primarily in factual narrative (e.g., helping coordinate a failed family visit, sharing past information Marie confided, reviewing Sean’s draft letter to [Marie’s father]). The order gives no indication that her professional ethics or clinical judgment were scrutinized, even though Lisa’s involvement could reasonably be argued to rise above that of a layperson, given her mental health background.
3. Significance to Plaintiffs’ Claims
Plaintiffs alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy, with facts suggesting Lisa used knowledge about Marie’s trauma to engage in harmful actions (e.g., discussing the “book,” contacting [Marie’s father]).
In the May 2, 2022 hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel made a strong case that Lisa’s training made her uniquely positioned to understand potential psychological harm, saying:
“…if she works with abuse victims and uses knowledge about abuse victims, to then reach out to [Marie’s father]… she’s clearly overlapping… and there shouldn’t be prior constraints…” (Tr. 14:10–15:1)
Judge Miller, however, excluded any such analysis from his summary judgment reasoning. This is critical because a central theory of the case—particularly as it relates to intentionality and emotional harm—hinged on Lisa’s professional understanding of trauma, abuse, and emotional distress. Her LPCC background arguably imposed a higher duty of care, or at least raised a material question of fact for trial.
By not addressing this, the court effectively treated Lisa as an ordinary family member, not a mental health professional with legal and ethical responsibilities.
4. Conclusion
Judge Miller was aware of Lisa’s licensure and relevant background as of May 2, 2022, but he did not factor it into his summary judgment decision. This omission is significant because her clinical training and ethical obligations could have heightened her culpability in the context of plaintiffs’ claims. At a minimum, this arguably presented a material factual dispute about her knowledge, intent, and professional responsibility—issues that should have been reserved for a jury, not resolved on summary judgment.
Important Note!
The Artificial Intelligence analysis above reflects the unusual and undisclosed relationships between judicial officers in this case.
Defense attorney Kirsten Hansen is the daughter of retired Otter Tail County Judge Mark F. Hansen. Judge Hansen’s former law clerk, James E. Morrison, authored at least 13 orders for Judge Miller in Plaintiffs’ case, including this one. Neither Judge Miller nor Attorney Hansen disclosed the prior relationship between Clerk Morrison and Judge Hansen to Plaintiffs.
In Skarsten, we reversed summary judgment for the insurer based on the resident-relative provision and cautioned “a court must not rely on selected facts in order to justify a conclusion.” 381 N.W.2d at 19. Here, the district court’s summary-judgment decision rested on “selected facts” because it ignored relevant evidence favorable to appellants’ position, drew inferences unfavorable to appellants, and failed to view the record evidence in a light favorable to appellants.
Progressive Ins. v. Abel, No. A21-1267, 2022 WL 2124869, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. June 13, 2022)