In Jones v. County, published September 21, 2015, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision denying a physician's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The physician, the medical director of a public hospital's Suspected Child Abuse and Negligence team, became concerned when a baby who had been brought to the hospital with injuries from falling down stairs, released, and then brought back with rib fractures, had sustained the rib fractures through abuse. She asked the parents to bring the baby back to be hospitalized for tests, even though the tests could be conducted on an out-patient basis. When the parents grew concerned, the physician enlisted others to persuade the parents to "play ball" and that if they did not the baby could be detained. When the baby was checked in, the doctor stationed a "sitter" in the room so that the parents would not be alone with the child. The parents eventually sued the doctor for violating their constitutional liberty rights to their child.
The majority held that the doctor was not entitled to qualified immunity, because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the parents, showed that a reasonable physician in the plaintiff's position would have known that she was detaining the baby, without a warrant or reasonable cause; and that doing so would violate the parents' 14th Amendment Due Process rights and their 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Although existing case law looked at the standards for social workers and police officers detaining children without a warrant or reasonable cause, the court determined that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the physician was acting as an investigator, not a physician.
The court also rejected the doctor's arguments she was entitled to summary judgment on the state law claims based on statutory immunity. The Reporter's Privilege under Penal Code section 11172(a) did not apply, because of the evidence that the doctor was usurping the authority of the Department of Children and Family Services regarding the baby. Government Code section 820.2 immunity did not apply, because no statute gave the physician discretion to act as she allegedly did.
Comments