Decisions of Interest

Two suits against a New York doctor charged with wrongfully accusing parents of abusing their infants have been allowed to go forward because the court found that the immunity generally afforded to medical personnel who report child abuse did not prevent suit, as the plaintiffs offered plausible evidence of the doctor's bad faith. V.S. v. Muhammad, 07-cv-213; Denes Q. v. Caesar, 07-cv-1281 (E.D.N.Y., 9/30/08).

The suits were brought on behalf of two infants removed from their homes after Dr. Debra Esernio-Jenssen, the medical director of Long Island Jewish Medical Center's Child Protection Center, opined their injuries were caused by parental abuse. The facts of the two cases are similar. In V.S. v. Muhammad, a new mother left her two-month-old son with his grandmother while she ran some errands. The child was then injured when his grandmother fell while holding him. When the mother returned, she saw that the baby's leg was swollen and took him to the medical center. While they were there, Dr. Esernio-Jenssen allegedly wrongfully reported to the Administration for Children's Services that the mother had inflicted a head injury on the baby. The child was removed from his mother's care that same day and was not returned for a year. During that period, the doctor allegedly repeated her claims that the mother abused the baby, including during a child abuse trial. Following that trial, the court returned the baby to his parents after the judge found the child had suffered only a broken leg, due to the grandmother's fall, and no head injury. In the second case, Denes Q. v. Caesar, an infant was removed from her parents' care after she suffered a burn while with a babysitter, again on the basis of Dr. Esernio-Jenssen's opinion that the parents caused the injury by abusing the child. The baby was not returned to her parents for two months.