Denial of Appeal Means CHOP Must Litigate Case Over Alleged Faulty Child Abuse Finding
Below is Jay L. Edelstein’s exclusive statement regarding our case against CHOP.
“Child abuse is a very serious allegation” That is not what occurred here.. .The law in Pennsylvania offer reporters such as CHOP certain protections when they act in good faith. The allegations here are a complete injustice and done in Bad Faith.. Instead of righting a wrong and retracting the charges CHOP perpetuated a lie which leaves them exposed…They have attempted to use the Lower Court, Superior Court and Supreme Court to them from liability by hiding behind the Immunity argument. Having exhausted these avenues they must now explain to a Jury the wrongs they committed. It is our duty to right this wrong and make our client whole…”
ORIGINALLY POSTED ON THE LEGAL INTELLIGENCER
By P.J. D'Annunzio | March 02, 2021 at 01:54 PM
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia stemming from a lawsuit filed against it over an allegedly faulty finding of child abuse that led to the separation of a family.
CHOP went to the Supreme Court after the state Superior Court quashed its appeal of a Philadelphia judge’s ruling denying the hospital summary judgment in the case filed by plaintiffs Kristy Geissinger and Christopher Conway.
The plaintiffs took their child to CHOP and a physician rendered a diagnosis of “‘non-accidental trauma or child abuse,’” according to the trial court’s opinion written by Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Angelo Foglietta. The child was removed from the parents’ custody and a lengthy court battle ensued in New Jersey Chancery Court.
The parents, who denied the allegations of child abuse, claimed the treating physicians failed to take into account the child’s medical history, including vacuum-assisted birth. Their medical testimony showed that the injury was a non-traumatic subdural hemorrhage. The court found in the parents’ favor and had their names removed from the child abuse registry.
Subsequently, the parents sued CHOP, claiming they were reported without basis. CHOP argued it was immune because its physicians were statutorily obligated to report cases of suspected abuse.
The plaintiffs countered that the statute protects mandated reporters only if they operate in good faith, and that in this case the defendants ignored their child’s medical history and engaged in abuse of proceedings.
While the defendants requested summary judgment, Foglietta said that because the denial of summary judgment was not final or dispositive, nor was it an order from which an interlocutory appeal could be made, it was not appealable.
The plaintiffs are represented by Edelstein Law in Philadelphia.
“Child abuse is a serious issue and our laws protect mandatory reporters who bring cases to the authorities in good faith,” said Edelstein lawyer Andrew Thompson in an email. “In this case, the evidence shows that the diagnosis that resulted in our client’s son’s removal from their care was faulty and unsupported medically. CHOP has asked courts at every level here in Pennsylvania to find that the actions of their doctors were shielded by immunity and that our clients should not have their day in court.”
Thompson continued, “Now that the avenues to avoid accountability are all closed for the defendants, we are confident that a jury will see this situation for what it is, a sad case where an incorrect diagnosis was made that almost destroyed a family. When given the opportunity to admit that they were wrong, the physicians doubled down. Our clients suffered greatly, and the pain of that first year without their son and their struggle to get him back will always haunt them. We are grateful the Pa. Supreme Court agrees that the doctors’ actions should face scrutiny.”
CHOP is represented by Nicholas Centrella of Conrad O’Brien, who did not respond to a request for comment.