Wednesday, July 2, 2003
|
Wednesday, July 2, 2003 |
Ga. Supreme Court sides with doctor who reported child abuseBy JOHN
MUNFORD
The Georgia Supreme Court by a 4-3 margin has ruled that a local doctor acted appropriately in reporting a case of suspected child abuse that led to a suit against her for overstepping her bounds under Georgia's law that requires doctors and others to make such reports. Dr. Sara O'Heron and her then-employer, The Emory Clinic, were sued by Thomas Blaney and his wife, Jean Blaney, after O'Heron's report from an exam of the Blaney's two granddaughters in 1997 led to criminal charges being filed against them. The Blaneys were charged with child molestation, sodomy, incest and contributing to the deprivation of a minor but the charges were later dropped after a grand jury heard the evidence in the case in 1999 and declined to indict the Blaneys. The Blaneys later sued O'Heron and The Emory Clinic, alleging that O'Heron acted in bad faith in making the allegation of child abuse. But "because the children's allegations are sufficient to cause a reasonable person to suspect that child abuse has occurred," O'Heron qualifies for immunity from prosecution, the court ruled. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice George H. Carley, asserts that the statute requires "good faith" on behalf of the person reporting the abuse, and the suit filed by the Blaneys "raises material issues of motive, intent, honesty and 'moral obliquity'" on O'Heron's part in reference to her testimony and actions in the case. "... It is certainly possible for a reporter of child abuse to have an objectively reasonable cause to make the report, and at the same time, have a subjective, honest belief that abuse has not occurred," Carley wrote in his opinion. He was joined in his dissent by Presiding Justice Leah Ward Sears and Justice Robert Benham. The opinion for the majority of the court indicates that the legislature has made it clear "that reporting is essential to protecting innocent children from abuse." Requiring that the report be made on good faith "chills the reporting requirement and fails to honor the legislative goal of protecting children by encouraging the reporting of suspected child abuse," the majority wrote. In court documents, the Blaneys accused O'Heron of trying to justify her original findings, which were contradicted by an exam of the victims that was performed by another doctor two weeks prior. Other medical experts indicated that O'Heron erred in saying she could pinpoint the time of the abuse to the weekend the victims spent with the Blaneys, according to court documents. The Blaneys were represented by Atlanta attorney Albert M. Pearson III.
|
||