Fines v. RACSB: Virginia's Community Services Boards Have No Sovereign Immunity
For a survivor of childhood abuse, the hardest step is often the first one: deciding to hold someone accountable. Imagine taking that step — suing the public agency whose own therapist abused you as a small child — and being told the courthouse is closed, not because you are wrong, but because the agency is "immune." That is what happened to the plaintiff in Fines v. Rappahannock Area Community Services Board. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Virginia reopened the door.
In a decision issued September 8, 2022 — Fines v. Rappahannock Area Community Services Board, 301 Va. 305 (2022) (Record No. 210501) — Justice Powell wrote for the Court that Virginia's community services boards — the local public bodies that deliver mental health, developmental disability, and substance abuse services across the Commonwealth — are not entitled to sovereign immunity from tort suits.
The case
The plaintiff alleged he was molested as a young child by his therapist at the Rappahannock Area Community Services Board, and he sued the board for negligent retention and supervision of the abuser. The circuit court never reached the merits: it dismissed the case, reasoning that the board was a municipal corporation entitled to immunity.
Sovereign immunity — the old doctrine that "the king can do no wrong" — still runs deep in Virginia law. The Commonwealth itself generally cannot be sued in tort except as the Virginia Tort Claims Act narrowly permits; counties share broad immunity; cities and towns are immune for "governmental" functions though not "proprietary" ones. Defendants who are none of these things naturally try to dress in borrowed robes, arguing they are really an arm of the state or really a municipal corporation. The question in Fines was whether a community services board could wear either costume.
The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, and its reasoning matters well beyond this one case. Sovereign immunity in Virginia protects the Commonwealth itself, its arms and agencies, and — for governmental functions — municipal corporations. An operating community services board, the Court held, is neither:
| Immunity theory | Why it failed |
|---|---|
| "Arm of the Commonwealth" | Community services boards are locally activated and locally controlled — created and overseen by the localities they serve, not the state |
| "Municipal corporation" | A CSB lacks the essential attributes of a municipal corporation: it is not a body corporate and politic, has no power of eminent domain, and exercises only powers constrained by its localities |
Because the board fit neither category, it enjoys no sovereign immunity. The claims were reinstated and the case sent back for trial court proceedings on the merits.
Why this matters
Community services boards serve some of the most vulnerable people in Virginia — children in therapy, people in mental health crisis, individuals with developmental disabilities. When the person a family trusted turns out to be dangerous, and the agency kept him in a position of access, accountability should not turn on a metaphysical debate about corporate form. After Fines, it does not: tort victims injured by a community services board's negligence — including survivors of abuse by CSB employees — can have their cases heard like any other negligence claim.
The decision is also an important marker in a broader fight. Public and quasi-public entities routinely reach for immunity as a first line of defense, hoping to end cases before discovery ever begins. Modern government operates through a thicket of authorities, boards, commissions, and public-private hybrids, and each new form invites a new immunity argument. Fines is a reminder that immunity has boundaries, that those boundaries are defined by what an entity actually is and does rather than by the label it prefers, and that courts — not the defendants themselves — decide where they lie.
What this means for injured people in Virginia
- Claims against CSBs are viable. Negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims against community services boards can proceed on their merits.
- Past dismissals may deserve another look. Where a claim against a CSB was abandoned or dismissed on immunity grounds, counsel should evaluate what options remain within the limitations period.
- Immunity analysis is entity-specific. Fines does not strip immunity from the Commonwealth, its true agencies, or municipalities performing governmental functions — the doctrine remains alive and complicated. Identifying exactly what kind of entity hurt you is now, more than ever, a threshold task for counsel.
- Survivors have options. Combined with recent decisions on institutional accountability for abuse, Virginia law increasingly recognizes that organizations answer for the predators they negligently keep in place.
If you or a loved one has been hurt, call Posey Lebowitz at (202) 524-0123 or send us a message for a free consultation.
Part of our DMV case law archive, compiled in 2026 to reflect the archive of some of the most important decisions in injury law.