SUBJECT: NO DEFAMATION BY HOSPITAL IN SENDING CHILD ABUSE REPORT TO POLICE

CASE NAME: JOHNFROE V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

CASE CITE: 537 SO. 2D 383 (LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEALS)


FACTS OF CASE: A trial court dismissed a defamation action by a father and grandmother against the hospital that sent results of child and sexual abuse examinations to law enforcement officials. At the request of their mother, two children were examined at the hospital to determine if they had been sexually abused by their father or grandmother. The results were inconclusive and were sent to local law enforcement officials. The father was also sent a bill from the hospital for the examinations.

Under the category "principle diagnosis" the bill stated "history of child abuse" for one child and "history of sexual abuse" for the other one. The trial court dismissed the defamation action, the court said that the inconclusive results of the examinations did not defame them. The bills were sent to the father, and since they were not disclosed to any third party, there was no defamation.

CASE COMMENTARY: Defamation is the unprivileged publication of false statements that result in injury to another. The trial court stated that there were no false statements made because the examinations were inconclusive. Thus the statements were not "false" and a critical element of the defamation action was absent.




SUBJECT: CHILD ABUSE LAWS PROTECT PHYSICIAN FROM ALLEGED CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION

CASE NAME: THOMAS V. CHADWICK

CASE CITE: NO. D010223 CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

FACTS OF CASE: Harvey Thomas, at two months of age was transferred from a hospital in Browley, California to the Childrens Hospital and Health Center (Hospital) in San Diego. Harvey was examined by Dr. David Chadwick, who diagnosed him as suffering from a subdural hematoma which could have been caused only by violent shaking or a fall. Dr. Chadwick then filed a report of suspected child abuse pursuant to the state child abuse and neglect reporting act. Harvey died four days later, and Dr. Chadwick and the Hospital then contacted the county district attorney's office to report that Harvey had died as a result of suspected abuse.

The district attorney then instituted proceedings to remove Harvey's sister, Latoya, from her parent’s home. Meanwhile, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas hired a medical expert who determined that the cause of Harvey's injuries was a congenital condition, a subdural hematoma resulting from an arteriovenous malformation of the brain. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas then sued Dr. Chadwick and the hospital, asserting claims for medical negligence, and civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court dismissed the suit and the plaintiffs appealed.

The appeals court ruled that the immunities provided in the child abuse reporting law were absolute, and thus protected mandatory reporters, even when acting unreasonably, recklessly, or with malice. The court ruled further that the immunities extended both to the statutorily required initial reports and to the subsequent reports implicitly authorized by the statute.

Finally the court ruled that the immunities in the child abuse reporting law were not preempted by federal civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

CASE COMMENTARY: Many state courts have had similar rulings in recent years. State courts are protecting mandated reporters under the child abuse laws. Many state courts hold that the immunities are absolute, and have not allowed an end around the law using such creative approaches as using the civil rights laws. Other states require "good faith" reporting.




SUBJECT: CHILD ABUSE REPORTING IMMUNIZES PHYSICIAN FROM MALPRACTICE LIABILITY

CASE NAME: MAPLES V. SIDDIQUI

CASE CITE: NO. 437/89-91 IOWA SUPREME COURT

FACTS OF CASE: Charles and Deborah Maples sued Dr. Shameem Siddiqui and Mercy Medical Center Hospital of DeMoine (hospital) for malpractice, alleging that the defendant physician negligently diagnosed their child's malnutrition as caused by inadequate parenting skills. After the child was placed in temporary foster care, it was discovered that the child was suffering from malabsorption syndrome, cirrhosis and fibrosis of the liver. The child was then returned to the plaintiffs. The trial court granted judgement for the defendant physician, holding that the child abuse reporting statute immunized her from liability for the Maples claim. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Iowa Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the statutory immunity for good faith reporting of a suspected child abuse or neglect should not protect a physician from liability for a report based on a negligent diagnosis. The court concluded that the legislature granted immunity with the understanding that a physician might be negligent, and that to permit liability for mere negligence would discourage those who suspect child abuse from making a report. Therefore the judgement of the trial court was affirmed.

CASE COMMENTARY: Here, the missed diagnosis does not change the scenario. The physician reported child abuse, but was wrong. The physician had absolute immunity even when there's a failure to diagnose.