## Facts

- An infant, Nykkole Becker, was treated at a hospital operated by Mayo Foundation for injuries that hospital staff considered suspicious for child abuse.
- Mayo treated Nykkole but did not promptly report suspected abuse to authorities.
- Nykkole later returned to the hospital with more severe injuries inflicted while in her biological parents’ care, resulting in permanent disability.
- After the later injuries, authorities were notified, the state took custody of Nykkole, and she was placed with Nancy and Michael Becker as foster parents; they later adopted her.
- The Beckers and the Minnesota Department of Human Services sued Mayo, alleging that earlier reporting and related protective steps would have prevented the later, catastrophic injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether Minnesota’s Child Abuse Reporting Act, Minn. Stat. § 626.556, creates a private civil cause of action for failure to report suspected child abuse.
2. Whether the hospital had a “special relationship” with the child that created a common-law duty to protect her from abuse inflicted by her parents away from the hospital.
3. Whether evidence concerning a hospital’s responsibility to report suspected child abuse may be admitted as proof of the medical standard of care in a malpractice action.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held Minn. Stat. § 626.556 does not create civil liability for failure to report suspected child abuse.
- The court held no special relationship existed imposing an affirmative duty on the hospital to protect the child from future abuse inflicted away from the hospital by a third party over whom the hospital had no control.
- The court held the district court erred by excluding all evidence relating to reporting suspected abuse where plaintiffs made a prima facie showing, through expert testimony, that reporting was required by the ordinary skill and care expected in the medical profession.

## Legal Principles

- A statute requiring mandated reporting of child abuse, enforced through criminal or administrative mechanisms and lacking an express civil remedy, does not, without legislative intent, imply a private right of action.
- Absent custody or control, a hospital generally has no common-law duty to protect a patient from a third party’s conduct occurring outside the hospital; a “special relationship” requires facts showing a custodial or comparable protective role.
- Even when a statute does not create a private cause of action, statutory or regulatory duties may be admissible as evidence informing the professional standard of care in medical malpractice, if supported by competent expert testimony and otherwise consistent with evidentiary rules.
- A categorical exclusion of all reporting-related evidence can constitute reversible error when it prevents the jury from considering probative evidence on breach of the medical standard of care.

## Conclusion

The court rejected statutory and special-relationship theories that would impose direct civil liability for failing to report suspected child abuse or a duty to protect against off-premises parental abuse, but ruled that reporting obligations may still be relevant evidence of the medical standard of care, requiring further proceedings with that evidence permitted.


Becker v. Mayo Found., 737 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. 2007)