Denes Q. v. Caesar
| Decision Date | 21 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | 07-CV-1281 (CBA) (JO) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
| Parties | DENES Q. & ANN MARIE C., individually and on behalf of their infant daughter, Y.Q., Plaintiffs, v. JANET CAESAR et al., Defendants. |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Denes Q. and Ann Marie C. have filed a lawsuit, individually and on behalf of their infant daughter Y.Q., against two private hospitals and a private physician (the medical defendants), as well as the City of New York and several of its employees responsible for detecting and preventing child abuse (the City defendants).
Relevant to this decision, the plaintiffs allege that the medical defendants illegally detained and examined Y.Q. after her parents brought her to a private hospital in January 2006 with a burn that no one could explain, which led the medical defendants, and later the City defendants, to suspect child abuse. They also allege that the medical defendants denied Y.Q. her constitutional right to adequate medical care and illegally participated in the prosecution of Denes and Ann Marie for child abuse. That prosecution lasted from January to March 2006.
The City defendants have settled. The medical defendants have moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' federal constitutional and state law claims. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted with respect to the federal claims. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction of the state law claims.
On January 4, 2006, Denes and Ann Marie went to work and left their twenty-two month old daughter Y.Q. with her regular babysitter. (PI. R. 56.1 ¶ 6.) Later that day, Denes's mother retrieved Y.Q. from the babysitter and took her to the grandmother's house, which was across the street from Denes and Ann Marie's house, (Id. ¶ 7.) Sometime after 7:30 p.m. that night, Denes left work and traveled to his mother's house to retrieve his daughter. (Id. ¶ 8.)
When he arrived at his mother's house, Denes noticed that Y.Q. "was crying and being very fidgety." (Denes Dep. 37.) Denes asked his mother what was wrong with his daughter, and his mother said that she did not know and that Y.Q. was "just very cranky." (Id.) When Denes lifted his daughter to leave, he noticed that her clothing smelled "like a degreaser," (Id. at 39.)
Soon after he arrived home, Denes went upstairs to change Y.Q.'s diaper. While changing the diaper, Denes did not notice any marks on Y.Q., although he did notice that Y.Q. "was very fidgety and unusually cranky." (Id. at 40.) While changing Y.Q.'s diaper, Denes continued to smell what he identified as a degreaser. (Id.)
Denes then took his daughter downstairs, where she calmed a little but was still more "fidgety" than normal, (Id. at 41,) Denes decided to take Y.Q. to her crib to make her more comfortable. When he arrived at the crib he noticed for the first time that Y.Q. was wearing two "onesies," which was unusual because he and Ann Marie never dressed Y.Q. in that way, (Id. at 42.) When he began to remove the outer onesie, Denes noticed a wet spot on both the inner and outer onesie. (Id.) Denes smelled the wet spot and noticed that it smelled like degreaser.
Denes continued to remove the onesies, and it was then that he noticed for the first time a mark on Y.Q.'s left chest. (Id. at 43.) The mark was about "two and a half, three inches'* in sizeand "shaped like a tooth," meaning that it "had two roots and a circular portion on top," (Id.) Denes described the mark as "red, yellow, brown, [and] green." (Id.) Upon discovering the mark, Denes "just freaked and panicked and decided [that he] had to get to the emergency room with [his] daughter" because "something was wrong with her." (Id.)
Soon after Denes discovered the burn (which was at about 8:00 p.m.), Ann Marie returned home and she, Denes, and Denes's mother all took Y.Q. to the emergency room. (Id. at 44.) They went first to Forest Hills Hospital, a defendant in this action, which is a private hospital that is owned by Long Island Jewish Medical Center, also a defendant in this action. (PI. R. 56,1 ¶¶3,5.)
Doctors at Forest Hills examined Y.Q., determined that she had been burned, and diagnosed her burn as a chemical burn, not a thermal burn. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 96.) Relevant to this litigation, chemical burns are less likely than thermal burns to be the result of child abuse. (Id. ¶¶ 122, 124.)
When asked at Forest Hills to explain their daughter's injuries, neither Denes nor Ann Marie was able to explain the burn, although they did explain their belief that Y.Q. had been injured while in the care of her babysitter or grandmother. (Id. ¶ 11.) The babysitter (who was contacted by telephone) could not explain the injury, and neither could the grandmother. (Denes Dep. 59 61, 84-85.)
Later on the evening of January 4, 2006, Forest Hills staff, consistent with New York law, which identifies them as mandated reporters, contacted the New York State Central Register and reported that, because Y.Q. had a burn that none of her caregivers was able to explain, they suspected that she was the victim of child abuse. (PI. R. 56.1 ¶ 13.) The Central Registerforwarded the report to the New York Administration for Children's Services (ACS) for investigation. (Id.¶ 20.)
Later that night, or early on the morning of January 5, 2006, Forest Hills transferred Y.Q. to Schneider Children's Hospital, which is also a private hospital owned and operated by Long Island Jewish Medical Center and a defendant in this action. (Id. ¶ 21.)
One of the first doctors to examine Y.Q. on January 5, 2006 indicated that she had an "unexplained injury" and that Debra Esernio-Jenssen, M.D., a child abuse specialist and member of Schneider's Child Protection Team, should be contacted. (Ex. F 100092.) Dr. Jenssen subsequently examined Y.Q. Her notes indicate that Y.Q.'s clothes had no smell (it is not clear whether Y.Q. was still wearing the same onesies that she was wearing earlier) and that there were no "splash marks" on Y.Q.'s chest. (Ex. F 100094.)
Dr. Jenssen also interviewed Denes and Ann Marie, as well as Denes's mother and the babysitter who had cared for Y.Q. the previous day. (PL R. 56,1 ¶¶ 146—48.) Dr. Jenssen testified that she conducted those interviews to determine the time at which the injury to Y.Q. occurred. (Jenssen Dep. 54.) There is evidence that during some or all of these interviews, Dr. Jenssen did not clearly identify herself as associated with Schneider's Child Protection Team. (PI. R. 56.1 H¶ 146-48.)
After her examination and interviews, Dr. Jenssen concluded that Y.Q.'s burn was the result of contact with a hot liquid (i.e. it was a thermal burn), not contact with a chemical. (Id. ¶ 150.) Dr. Jenssen's interview report (dated January 6, 2006) shows that she further determined that the burn "could certainly have resulted from an accidental spill" of hot liquid, as Y.Q.'s grandmother had said that she had been making soup while in the kitchen with her granddaughter, although the grandmother "denied [Y.Q.] having contact with soup or hot water."(Ex. F 100125.) Dr. Jenssen further indicated that "[b]oth parents and the sitter seemed to be genuinely concerned and credible." (Ex. F at 100125-26.)
ACS notes indicate that on the evening of January 5, 2006, Dr. Jenssen spoke with ACS and informed the agency that (Ex. L 193.)
After her examination and interviews. Dr, Jenssen ordered that a retinal exam and skeletal survey be performed on Y.Q. (Ex. F 100094.) Another physician who examined Y.Q. upon arrival at Schneider had a similar recommendation, although the medical records, which contain some illegible handwriting, do not clearly reveal the identity of the physician. (PI. R. 56.1 ¶ 32.)
Dr. Jenssen secured the consent of Y.Q.'s parents to perform these exams. (Ex. F 100094.) With respect to the skeletal survey, Denes testified that Dr. Jenssen explained to him that she wanted to know the extent of Y.Q.'s injuries and that a "skeletal survey would be something to help us understand how severe her injuries are or if she's hurt in any other way, shape, or form." (Denes Dep. 58.)
Dr. Jenssen also explained to Denes and Ann Marie that, if the survey ruled out child abuse (by, for example, failing to reveal evidence of suspicious healed breaks), ACS would end its investigation. (PI. R, 56.1 ¶ 159.) Dr. Jenssen also suggested to Y.Q.'s parents that the more they cooperated with ACS's efforts to determine whether Y.Q. had been abused, the sooner they would be able to go home with their daughter. (Id. ¶ 160.)
With respect to the retinal exam, Dr. Jenssen told Denes that Y.Q.'s burn could have been caused by contact with a chemical and that it was possible that some of the offending chemicalhad entered Y.Q.'s eyes. (Id.) She explained to Denes that the eye exam could detect any chemicals in his baby's eyes. (Id.)
Notwithstanding Dr. Jenssen's representations to Denes, the form requesting an ophthalmology consultation states that the reason for the consult was to rule out shaken baby syndrome; a shaken baby will have retinal hemorrhages that can be detected by the exam. (PI. R. 56.1 ¶ 158.) Dr. Jenssen did not tell Denes about the fact that a retinal exam is a tool used to diagnose child abuse.
Both the skeletal survey and ophthalmology exams eventually came back negative. That is, neither revealed any signs of abuse. (Ex. F 100101.)
Dr. Jenssen was not the only Schneider physician examining Y.Q. On January 6, 2006, Burt Greenberg, M.D., a plastic surgeon, consulted on Y.Q. and recommended a course of treatment, including a possible surgical debridement, (PI. R. 56.1 ¶¶ 30, 162.) Also on January 6, 2006, both a pediatric dermatologist and an...
To continue reading
Request your trial