NCJ Number
52795
Journal
EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN LEGAL BULLETIN Volume: 3 Issue: 2 Dated: (SPRING 1977) Pages: 5-10
Date Published
1977
Length
6 pages
Annotation
THREE COURT CASES INVOLVING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF AN EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIAN TO REPORT SUSPECTED CASES OF CHILD ABUSE ARE REVIEWED. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES ARE DISCUSSED AS GUIDES FOR PHYSICIANS.
Abstract
THE TWO CASES FROM CALIFORNIA CONCERN CASES OF ACTUAL ABUSE; THE ONE FROM WISCONSIN IS A CASE OF FALSE ABUSE REPORT. IN THE FIRST CASE, (LANDEROS V. FLOOD, WHICH REACHED THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT) IT WAS HELD THAT A BATTERED CHILD COULD BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIAN WHO DID NOT DIAGNOSE BATTERING AND DELAYED REPORTING THE ABUSE, SUBJECTING HER TO FURTHER ABUSE. THE CASE WAS BROUGHT BY A GUARDIAN AD LITEM. IN THE SECOND CALIFORNIA CASE, A NATURAL FATHER SUCCESSFULLY SUED A GENERAL PRACTITIONER, A PEDIATRICIAN, AND THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE FOR NOT INTERVENING WHEN THE MOTHER'S NEW BOY FRIEND SEVERELY BATTERED AN INFANT BOY. IN THIS CASE, AN EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIAN HAD VOICED HIS SUSPICIONS TO THE TWO OTHER DOCTORS, WHO IGNORED HIM. HE FINALLY CALLED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CALLED THE SHERIFF OF ARROYO GRANDE, WHO, IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, DID NOTHING. IN THE WISCONSIN CASE A COUPLE WAS FALSELY REPORTED FOR BATTERING A CHILD. THE CHILD WAS LATER DIAGNOSED AS HAVING MENKES SYNDROME, A RARE CONDITION CHARACTERIZED BY AMONG OTHER THINGS, BRITTLE BONES WHICH FRACTURE EASILY. THE COUPLE SUED THE EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIANS WHO WERE UPHELD BECAUSE THE REPORT WAS NOT ACCUSATORY BUT FOLLOWED PROCEDURES SPECIFIED IN WISCONSIN LAW. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE REPORT WAS IN GOOD FAITH BECAUSE BATTERING WAS A MUCH MORE LIKELY POSSIBILITY THAN MENKES SYNDROME. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT PHYSICIANS HAVE DEFINITE RESPONSIBILITIES TO REPORT SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE, BUT THAT THEY SHOULD BE READY TO JUSTIFY SUCH REPORTS. (GLR)