## Facts

- Vadine Brown brought her grandson to an emergency room at Decatur Medical Surgical Center on March 6, 1988, for treatment of a burn.
- Dr. Daniel Pound examined the child and suspected the burn might be the product of child abuse.
- Pursuant to Ala. Code § 26-14-3, Pound reported his suspicions to the Morgan County Department of Human Resources (DHR).
- DHR investigated and found no evidence of child abuse.
- Brown sued Pound and Decatur Medical Associates, Ltd. on January 10, 1989, alleging the report was groundless and caused emotional distress and invasion of privacy; she also sought to impose vicarious liability on the medical entity.
- Defendants moved to dismiss based on immunity under Ala. Code § 26-14-9; the trial court dismissed the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether Ala. Code § 26-14-9 immunizes a physician and a medical facility from civil liability for making a report of suspected child abuse required by Ala. Code § 26-14-3.
2. Whether tort claims (including emotional distress and invasion of privacy) and derivative respondeat superior claims can proceed when they are premised solely on the act of making the mandated report.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
- The court held the statutory immunity in § 26-14-9 barred Brown’s claims against Pound because they attacked conduct within the statute’s reporting scheme.
- The court held the claims against the medical entity, pleaded as respondeat superior, also failed because they were derivative of the allegedly immune reporting conduct.
- The court concluded that, even under the liberal dismissal standard, Brown could not possibly prevail given the statute’s protection for mandated reporters.

## Legal Principles

- Ala. Code § 26-14-3 imposes a mandatory duty on specified professionals to report when a child is known or suspected to be a victim of abuse or neglect.
- Ala. Code § 26-14-9 provides broad immunity for persons participating in the making of a report within the statutory scheme, preventing civil liability for claims premised on the report.
- The Child Abuse Reporting Act is construed to encourage reporting to protect children, even where suspicions later prove unfounded, and to avoid deterring reports through exposure to tort suits.
- Respondeat superior liability does not survive where the underlying employee conduct is immune and the claims are based solely on the protected act of reporting.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Child Abuse Reporting Act’s immunity provision bars tort actions arising from a physician’s statutorily required report of suspected child abuse, and it affirmed dismissal of both direct claims against the physician and derivative claims against the medical facility.


Brown v. Pound, 585 So. 2d 885 (Ala. 1991)