Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from psychological therapy and treatment provided by appellant Nancy A. McGarrah, a licensed psychologist, to K. P. G., the minor child of appellee Michelle Posig. Posig sued McGarrah alleging that McGarrah breached the professional standard of care by failing to detect and report sexual abuse of K. P. G. as required under OCGA § 19-7-5, which mandates licensed psychologists to report suspected child abuse. The complaint named McGarrah and her practice, Cliff Valley Psychologists, P.A., as defendants. The trial court denied McGarrah's motion for summary judgment, finding factual issues regarding breach of care and injury. McGarrah appealed the interlocutory denial of summary judgment. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the denial.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a licensed psychologist's failure to detect and report suspected child sexual abuse under OCGA § 19-7-5 gives rise to a private cause of action for professional malpractice.
  2. Whether the trial court erred in denying summary judgment based on the existence of a legal duty and proximate cause related to the failure to report suspected child abuse.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • McGarrah relied on prior decisions of this Court (Cechman v. Travis, Vance v. T. R. C., and Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Reliance Trust Co.) holding that OCGA § 19-7-5 does not create a private cause of action for failure to report child abuse.
  • The trial court improperly distinguished these precedents by focusing on proximate cause rather than the absence of a legal duty to report giving rise to civil liability.
  • Expert affidavits alleging breach of standard care cannot create a legal duty where none exists by statute or common law.

Appellee's Arguments

  • Posig contended that McGarrah breached the professional standard of care by failing to suspect or report child sexual abuse, relying on expert testimony supporting this claim.
  • Posig cited cases from other jurisdictions to argue for recognition of a private cause of action for failure to report child abuse.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Cechman v. Travis, 202 Ga. App. 255 (1991) OCGA § 19-7-5 does not create a private cause of action for failure to report child abuse. Used to support that failure to report does not give rise to civil liability.
Vance v. T. R. C., 229 Ga. App. 608 (1997) Statutory reporting duty does not create civil liability; failure to report must be "knowing and wilful" for criminal liability. Reinforced that no legal duty to impose civil liability exists for failure to report.
Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Reliance Trust Co., 270 Ga. App. 822 (2004) Failure to detect and report child abuse does not breach legal duty giving rise to malpractice cause of action. Controlling precedent; court followed its reasoning to reverse denial of summary judgment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by construing the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, as required on summary judgment review. It recounted the factual background, including McGarrah's psychological treatment of K. P. G. and her decision not to report suspected abuse after consultation and ethics review. The Court reaffirmed that OCGA § 19-7-5 imposes a statutory duty to report suspected child abuse but does not create a private civil cause of action for failure to report.

The Court rejected the trial court’s distinction of prior case law, emphasizing that the absence of a legal duty to report that supports civil liability was the controlling principle in Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. and related cases. The Court noted that expert affidavits alleging breach of professional standards cannot create a legal duty where none exists by statute or common law.

Furthermore, the Court recognized the moral duty to report suspected abuse but underscored that the legal duty and any civil liability must be created by the legislature, not the judiciary. The Court declined to impose tort liability for failure to report suspected child abuse, citing concerns about over-reporting and the legislative role in balancing these interests.

The Court found the appellee’s reliance on cases from other jurisdictions unpersuasive and reaffirmed Georgia law as controlling.

Holding and Implications

The Court reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment and held that the appellee failed to state a cause of action recognized under current Georgia law.

The direct effect of this decision is that licensed psychologists in Georgia are not subject to civil liability for failure to report suspected child abuse under OCGA § 19-7-5. The Court emphasized that any expansion of liability in this area is a legislative matter. No new legal precedent expanding civil liability was created; rather, the Court reaffirmed existing precedent limiting private causes of action for failure to report child abuse.

McGARRAH et al. v. POSIG.

MIKELL, Judge.

Appellants Nancy A. McGarrah, a licensed psychologist, and her practice, Cliff Valley Psychologists, P.A., defendants below, bring this interlocutory appeal from the State Court of DeKalb County's denial of their motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

This case stems from psychological therapy and treatment provided by McGarrah to K. P. G., the minor child of appellee Michelle Posig. Posig sued McGarrah as mother and guardian of K. P. G., alleging that McGarrah breached a professional standard of care by her failure to detect and report sexual abuse of K. P. G. Under OCGA § 19-7-5, licensed psychologists must report suspected child abuse, including sexual abuse, to the appropriate authorities; knowing and wilful failure so to report is a criminal offense, a misdemeanor.

Appellant Cliff Valley Psychologists, P.A., was named as a defendant in the complaint on the theory of respondeat superior, agency or apparent agency.

Also named as defendants were Susan Boyan and Family Solutions, LLC, a/k/a Cooperative Parenting Institute. The trial court below granted summary judgment on behalf of these defendants, and they are not before this Court on this appeal.

OCGA § 19-7-5 (c) (1) provides that "[t]he following persons having reasonable cause to believe that a child has been abused shall report or cause reports of that abuse to be made as provided in this Code section: . . . (D) Licensed psychologists." Subsection (c) (1) also mandates reporting of child abuse by physicians, hospital personnel, dentists, nurses, professional counselors, social workers, teachers, guidance counselors, and certain other persons who in their professional work might see indications of abuse in the children they treat.

OCGA § 19-7-5 (b) (3.1).

OCGA § 19-7-5 (e).

See OCGA § 19-7-5 (h).

Construing the evidence and all inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, as we must on review of the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, the record shows that, following a contentious divorce and custody battle, Posig and her ex-husband, David Gore, K. P. G.'s father, sought "postdivorce parent coordinating" from Susan Boyan, a licensed marriage and family therapist. During these parent counseling sessions, Posig alleged that Gore had sexually abused K. P. G. since she was an infant. Although Boyan found no evidence of abuse and made no report under OCGA § 19-7-5, she took the allegations seriously and referred the then five-year-old K. P. G. to McGarrah for evaluation "in order to explore abuse issues."

Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Reliance Trust Co., 270 Ga. App. 822, 823 ( 608 SE2d 272) (2004).

Dr. Boyan did not see or treat K. P. G. professionally, but only her mother and father.

McGarrah saw K. P. G. professionally for evaluation and psychological treatment from January 30 to November 7, 2001. During her sessions with K. P. G., McGarrah learned that K. P. G. was obsessed with obtaining what she described to McGarrah as a "tickle feeling," which McGarrah understood to refer to masturbation; that K. P. G. sought this "feeling" both in the bathtub while her mother was bathing her and in a "crushing game" she played with her father, in which he would lie on top of his daughter; and that K. P. G. "seemed to be quite needy for attention from other adults." Because of K. P. G.'s age-inappropriate sexual behavior, McGarrah diagnosed K. P. G. with "adjustment reaction," and she recommended that K. P. G. continue to receive therapy from another psychologist. Ultimately, after consulting with other professionals and presenting a hypothetical on the case to the ethics committee of the Georgia Psychological Association, McGarrah determined that K. P. G. was not the victim of sexual abuse, so she did not file a report pursuant to OCGA § 19-7-5.

On November 25, 2002, more than a year after McGarrah's evaluation of K. P. G. had ended, Dr. Kirsten Silverman, K. P. G.'s pediatrician, reported to the authorities suspected child sexual abuse of K. P. G. by her father. Subsequent investigations by child welfare agencies did not result in Gore's arrest or criminal prosecution for abuse of K. P. G., although one investigator determined that Gore's behavior did suggest sexual abuse. Posig herself never made any report of her husband's alleged abuse of her daughter to the authorities, because, she testified, she deferred to the therapists who were treating her daughter. On May 4, 2004, subsequent to her filing of this lawsuit, Posig signed a partial consent agreement in Fulton County Superior Court, which granted herself and Gore joint legal custody of K. P. G. and stated that "both parents are fit and capable parents."

The complaint was filed on October 1, 2003.

In moving for summary judgment below, McGarrah relied on the opinions of this Court in Cechman v. Travis, Vance v. T. R. C., and Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Reliance Trust Co. In these decisions, we have clearly held that OCGA § 19-7-5 does not create a private cause of action for failure to report child abuse. The trial court nonetheless denied McGarrah's motion, finding that "issues of fact remain for decision regarding whether Dr. McGarrah breached the standard of care by failing to report suspected abuse and whether [K. P. G.] suffered an injury due to the breach." In so ruling, the court below distinguished the case at bar from Cechman, Vance, and Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. on the grounds that, in these decisions, the plaintiffs common-law claims failed, not because no cause of action at common law existed, but because the injury to the plaintiff was not the proximate result of the breach of any legal duty owed by the defendants.

202 Ga. App. 255 ( 414 SE2d 282) (1991).

229 Ga. App. 608 ( 494 SE2d 714) (1997).

Supra.

Fulton-DeKalb Hosp., supra at 825; Vance, supra at 611 (1) (a); Cechman, supra at 256 (1).

We disagree with the lower court's reasoning. This appeal is controlled by Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. In that case, this Court carefully considered whether failure to detect and report child abuse gives rise to a cause of action for professional malpractice. There, in a case which was truly horrific on its facts, Terrell Peterson, a small child, was first brought to the emergency room of Grady Memorial Hospital in November 1996. His injuries at that time were so severe that the treating doctor diagnosed "battered child syndrome" and made a report of child abuse to the authorities pursuant to OCGA § 19-7-5. Terrell was again brought to the emergency room in late 1996, for burns on his feet, but no report of abuse was made, and the child was released to the care of his foster grandmother, the alleged abuser. The last time Terrell came to the emergency room, in January 1998, he was pronounced dead on arrival — the result of child abuse. Refusing to overrule its decisions in Cechman and Vance, this Court ruled that, even if the failure to report little Terrell's burned feet was a violation of the mandated reporting requirement of OCGA § 19-7-5, the hospital authority breached no legal duty to Terrell by such failure to report, and such failure to report was not the proximate cause of Terrell's injuries, which were suffered allegedly at the hands of his own foster grandmother.

Supra.

Id. at 823.

Id.

Id. at 825-826.

Id. at 823, n. 4.

As this panel noted in oral argument, there may well be a moral duty to report child abuse, if it is reasonably suspected. The legal duty to report, however, is imposed in Georgia by statute, and as stated above, this statute does not give rise to a private cause of action for damages. In support of her claims, Posig attached to her complaint the affidavit of a licensed psychologist who states that the applicable standard of care "calls for psychologists . . . to report to the appropriate authority reasonable suspicions of child abuse and neglect," and that, in his opinion, McGarrah "was negligent and deviated from the applicable standards of care in either failing to reasonably suspect child sexual abuse given the information with which she was presented, or failing to report such suspicions to investigative authorities if she indeed did have them, as she should have." This affidavit does not, and cannot, create a legal duty where none existed before. We note that a similar affidavit was presented in Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Nevertheless, this Court declined to find that the hospital authority breached a legal duty to Terrell in failing to report the abuse. Similarly, in Vance, this Court refused to impose civil liability on a doctor for his failure to report herpes found in a 13-year-old female patient, in spite of expert testimony, cited by the dissent, that the failure to report amounted to a breach of professional responsibility.

Id. at 823. There, the plaintiff presented the affidavit of a physician "who testified that in his opinion the Hospital had breached the generally accepted standard of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the medical profession by failing to timely identify, treat, report, and follow up on Terrell's child abuse and/or neglect."

Id. at 824.

Supra.

Id. at 615 (McMurray, P. J., dissenting). The Vance majority reasoned that (1) the reporting statute does not create a civil cause of action in favor of the abused child (id. at 610 (1) (a)); (2) in any case, the physician there (Vance) did not violate the reporting statute, because his failure to report was not "knowing and wilful" (id. at 612 (1) (b)); and (3) the harm done to the child (she became pregnant by her abusive foster father (id. at 608)) was not caused by Vance but by the abuser (id. at 612-613 (2)). Vance had no duty to control the abuser here, because Vance was not in a position to control the abuser's actions, nor was Vance as the child's physician liable to the child for future acts of child abuse by a third-party abuser. Id.

Posig has presented cases from other jurisdictions in her excellent supplemental brief. We do not, however, find these cases persuasive. As stated above, this case is controlled by Fulton-DeKalb Hosp.

David M. v. Beverly Hosp., 131 Cal. App.4th 1272 ( 32 Cal. Rptr.3d 649) (2005); Doe v. Winny, 327 Ill. App.3d 668 ( 764 NE2d 143) (2002); Landeros v. Flood, 17 Cal.3d 399 ( 551 P2d 389) (1976).

Supra.

Cases such as the one at bar can certainly present distressing allegations of abuse, and this Court is sympathetic to the plight of abused children such as Terrell Peterson. Nonetheless, any change in the law in these matters lies in the realm of the legislature. As this Court has stated on an earlier occasion, "[t]he ramifications of creating a tort liability must be weighed against the consequences of resultant potential over-reporting. This is a legislative task which either has been fulfilled by the choice for criminal law liability instead, or has yet to be done if and when the legislature determines to undertake it."

Vance, supra at 611 (1) (a).

Appellee Posig has failed to state a cause of action recognized under current Georgia law, and therefore the trial court erred in denying appellant McGarrah's motion for summary judgment.

Judgment reversed. Blackburn, P. J., and Adams, J., concur.

DECIDED JULY 28, 2006 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

McGARRAH v. POSIG
(Jul 28, 2006)