Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter for the Nursing Profession

July 2014 

  The nurse manager worked with the physician to delay the child’s surgery until a court order could be obtained for him to receive a tetanus shot  over the parents’ objections, while telling the parents the delay was due to another patient with a more urgent case. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT GEORGIA May 30, 2014

 The parents brought their young son to the hospital emergency department and reported that he had burned his toes and feet in a fire pit in their back yard.

  The next morning when it was time for surgery to debride the wounds and perform skin grafts, the parents refused to allow a tetanus shot, even though they had signed general consent forms for treatment and surgery.

  A physician and the nurse manager then told the parents that the surgery had to be postponed to accommodate a more urgent patient, but in fact they were stalling while the physician contacted the police to report suspected child abuse and neglect. 

  The police called family and child services who went before a juvenile court judge who signed a court order for the boy’s tetanus vaccination. 

  The judge signed the order based on information how the boy’s feet had been burned, that the parents were refusing a tetanus shot and that the boy apparently had never received any other immunizations in his lifetime.

  A staff nurse went in with armed hospital security officers and a deputy sheriff, handed the parents the judge’s order and minutes later the tetanus shot was given with no interference from the parents who were allowed to stay.

  Soon after surgery was performed, family and child services took legal custody of the child and removed him from the hospital to a location which was not disclosed to the parents.  The parents eventually got the child back after agreeing to parenting classes and supervision.

  The US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia dismissed the civil rights lawsuit the parents filed against the hospital on their own behalf and on behalf of their son.

  The Court expressly exonerated the hospital’s nurse manager for the subterfuge involved in telling the parents that the boy’s surgery was being delayed due to a more pressing case, while in fact the proper authorities were being contacted for a court order.

  The nurse manager also assured the parents that the hospital’s CEO would be contacting them that day or the next, which was not exactly true, and then refused to provide further information about the hospital’s complaint process.

  The nurse manager also asked the deputy to check the father’s ID card which seemed altered, which was also no grounds for him to sue.

   The Court also found no fault with the hospital for fact that a nurse vaccinated the child pursuant to a valid court order from the local juvenile court judge who had legal jurisdiction over the issue.

  A nurse came into the room accompanied by two armed hospital security officers and a local deputy sheriff, told the parents that the child was going to be given a tetanus shot whether or not they agreed and told them they could leave the hospital if they did not want to remain in the room, or they could stay with their child.

  After a twenty-five minute delay another  nurse took the child to another room where he was vaccinated in his parent’s presence.

  The parents had no grounds to argue with hospital administration or hospital staff about the court order.

  Any disagreement with the court order for the child’s vaccination should have been brought by the parents to the attention of the juvenile court judge, or the appropriate legal appeals process should have been taken up by the parents to reverse the judge’s ruling, the Court said.

  The hospital had already accepted the child for treatment, had decided to perform surgery and had begun treatment before the admissions director asked the father to fill out a Medicaid application form.

  The Court dismissed the allegations in the parents lawsuit about being asked to apply for Medicaid. They had objected because it would involve divulging information about them and releasing confidential medical information about their son.

  The Court also dismissed the lawsuit as it applied to the physician, the deputy sheriff, the juvenile court judge, an assistant state attorney general and the child protective services caseworkers involved in the case.  Cross v. Hospital, 2014 WL 2440544 (M.D. Ga., May 30, 2014).