Young v. Detroit Medical Center – Civil Liability for Mandatory Reporters

This case was posted to the Children’s Law Listserv by Jody Latuszek, an active contributor to that listserv.  Had she not posted it, I would have missed this case because it is outside of my radar.  I would like to thank her for bringing this to the attention of the Children’s Law Section members of the Michigan State Bar.

This case addresses the civil liability of mandatory reporters. The facts are as follows: a doctor failed to report suspected child abuse where the child, who had a history of abuse, exhibited bruising during examination. Essentially, the doctor didn’t report because the explanation of the foster mother seemed sincere and she seemed genuinely concerned. A short time later, the child is murdered in foster care after 11 blows to the head from foster dad. The PR of the child’s estate sues the doctor and hospital under vicarious liability. Plaintiff sued the doctor under ordinary negligence for failure to follow the mandatory reporting statute. The trial court grants summary disposition in favor of defendants arguing that Plaintiff should have brought a malpractice claim.

The CoA ruled that the doctor is liable as a mandatory reporter under the statute (MCL 722.623 and 722.633) and a claim can be brought under ordinary negligence.  Identifying suspected child abuse does not require expert medical knowledge as the statute specifically identifies non-medical mandatory reporters.  Additionally, imposing civil liability on doctors is consistent with purpose of the child welfare law as it encourages medical professionals to be vigilant and take an active role in reporting suspected abuse.  CoA also held that the hospital could be vicariously liable because the common-law doctrine of vicarious liability is not abrogated simply because the statute imposes liability on the non-reporter.  The Court noted, “such a doctrine cannot be abolished by implication.”

The dissent, written by Judge O’Connell, takes issue with subjecting the doctors to a common law negligence claim.  The concern is that this “strips doctors of the protections inherent in a medical-malpractice cause of action, which would hold a doctor to the standard of care in his profession when determining whether a “reasonable cause to suspect abuse” exists.” Judge O’Connell is concerned this places an undue burden on physicians.

In her post, Ms. Latuszek predicts that this is not the last we will hear from the appeals courts on this issue. I must agree with her.

To download or view the opinion, click here: Young v. DMC, Lee v. DMC (Dissent)

© 2009, Melinda Deel. All rights reserved.

Leave a reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree