Ferris v. Milton S. Hershey Med. Ctr. — Sept. 2016 (Summary)

PARENT REFUSES TREATMENT FOR KID/LAWSUIT ENSUES

Ferris v. Milton S. Hershey Med. Ctr.
No. 1:12-cv-0442 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2016)

The Middle District of Pennsylvania granted two physicians and a social worker’s motion for summary judgment against a former patient who obtained counsel through the Home School Legal Defense Association to file Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims – as well as a false imprisonment claim – against them.

After giving birth to a child with a number of health issues, the patient was transferred to the department of obstetrics where she refused to allow her child to receive vaccinations and other treatments to prevent further complications.  Subsequently, the physicians contacted Children and Youth Services and alerted the social worker to the patient refusing to allow treatment for her child.  The social worker was also unable to convince the patient to allow treatment for the child, so the social worker contacted the police department, which ultimately concluded that the child’s removal from the custody of the patient was necessary and had an emergency custody order issued.

With respect to the Fourth Amendment claim against the physicians, the court reasoned that the physicians acted reasonably in determining that emergency circumstances existed posing an immediate threat to the safety of the child.  The court found the patient’s refusal to allow her child to receive treatment and the fact that the patient had failed to retain a midwife to care for her following discharge were enough to show that the physicians acted reasonably in light of the surrounding circumstances.  Additionally, the court noted that even if a Fourth Amendment violation had occurred, based on the information available to the physicians, a reasonable official in the physician’s position would have concluded that the seizure of the patient’s child was supported by exigent circumstances.  Therefore, even if the court had found a Fourth Amendment violation, the physicians were entitled to qualified immunity and exemption from liability regarding the patient’s Fourth Amendment claims.

Turning to the patient’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against the physicians, the court rejected the patient’s argument that there was no emergency circumstance to justify deprivation of custody without parental consent, finding that the physicians were reasonable in concluding that the patient’s child was in imminent danger, and therefore emergency circumstances in fact existed to justify the patient’s deprivation of custody.

As to the patient’s claims against the social worker, the court first rejected the social worker’s contention that she qualified for absolute immunity because the actions that allegedly involved constitutional violations occurred prior to the emergency order for removal of the child being issued.  However, the court found that the patient’s Fourth Amendment claim against the social worker failed because the record before the court lacked any evidence of an actual seizure.  While the social worker informed the officer who confiscated the child of pertinent details, the court found that her involvement did not rise to a level that constituted an actual seizure.  Moreover, the court found that even if the Fourth Amendment violation had been established, the social worker was entitled to qualified immunity because she acted reasonably under the circumstances.

Having determined that the physicians’ actions were reasonable, the court concluded that the patient’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against the social worker failed because the social worker was entitled to consider the professional opinions of the medical staff when she formulated her own opinion about taking custody of the patient’s child.  The court found that the social worker was justified in her reliance on the professional opinions of the physicians and that her conclusion to remove the patient’s child was proper because emergency circumstances that posed an immediate threat to the safety of the child existed.  Lastly, the court rejected the patient’s false imprisonment claim, reasoning that the patient’s child being removed from her custody was necessary and the detention was not unlawful.  As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the physicians and social worker on all claims against them.