Draper v. Westerfield

Supreme Court of Tennessee · Torts

TortsNegligenceChild abuse reporting immunityDutySummary judgmentcommon law negligenceundertaking doctrineduty

Facts

While DCS and law enforcement were investigating possible abuse of Bryanna Draper, a DCS caseworker and detective asked radiologist Dr. Westerfield to review the child's x-rays and CT scan. Dr. Westerfield claimed he told them the images showed abnormalities, signs of possible abuse, and that the parents were the likely abusers; the caseworker said he instead stated the abnormality was not a cause for concern and suggested the injuries could have resulted from hospital nurses' treatment efforts. Mrs. Draper alleged that if Dr. Westerfield had reported suspected abuse, Bryanna would have been removed from her father's custody. Dr. Westerfield sought summary judgment, arguing immunity and lack of a viable malpractice claim.

Issue

Whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-410(a) immunized Dr. Westerfield for his participation in the investigation, whether he owed a common law duty after undertaking to review the child's records for investigators, and whether the court should address any private statutory right of action under the child-abuse reporting statutes.

Rule

Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-410(a) (1996), immunity is afforded only to a person who actually reports harm under section 37-1-403; the statute does not extend immunity merely for cooperating in an investigation or for giving a report that does not include a conclusion of child abuse. Separately, one who voluntarily undertakes to act, even gratuitously, assumes a duty to exercise reasonable care in performing that undertaking, including reviewing records and reporting findings to investigators.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Knoxville, a pediatric neurologist, Dr. Nina Patel, was asked by a county child-services investigator to review an infant's MRI during an abuse inquiry. Dr. Patel told the investigator only that the scan was "abnormal but nonspecific" and never said the injuries reasonably indicated abuse or neglect.

If the child's estate later sues Dr. Patel for negligence based on her role in the investigation, which is the strongest argument against Dr. Patel's claim of immunity under the 1996 Tennessee child-abuse reporting statute?

Explanation. The majority held that under the 1996 statute, immunity extends only to a person who actually reports harm under the reporting statute. Mere cooperation or a statement that omits a conclusion of suspected abuse is not enough. The opinion also makes clear that reports need not be limited to writing, that immunity is not limited to treating physicians, and that the statute can provide civil immunity when its conditions are met. (Derived from Draper v. Westerfield (n.d.).)