Facts
- A minor female patient was transported by ambulance to a psychiatric hospital.
- The ambulance was operated by Superior Ambulance Service, and staffed by two EMTs: Timothy O’Connell (driver) and Matt DeFillippo (riding in the back with the patient).
- During the transport, O’Connell became suspicious that DeFillippo was sexually molesting the child in the rear compartment.
- O’Connell called his supervisor for instructions on how to respond to his suspicions.
- O’Connell’s report to his supervisor led to a police investigation.
- DeFillippo was charged with criminal sexual conduct and later pleaded guilty.
- The child’s parents sued O’Connell and Superior, alleging (among other theories) that they violated Michigan’s Child Protection Law (CPL), MCL 722.621 et seq., by failing to report suspected child abuse to the child protective agency under MCL 722.623.
- O’Connell and Superior moved for summary disposition on the CPL-based failure-to-report claim, arguing that the mandatory-reporting duty to child protective services was not triggered because the CPL’s definitions link “child abuse” to acts by specified categories of perpetrators (such as a parent, guardian, or similar caregiver), and DeFillippo was a coworker EMT rather than a person in the types of relationships described by the statute.
- The trial court denied the motion. Defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals considered the reporting issue on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether MCL 722.623 required an EMT and his ambulance-service employer to make a mandatory report to the child protective agency when the suspected sexual abuse of a minor patient was committed by a coworker EMT during ambulance transport.
- Whether defendants were entitled to summary disposition on a civil claim premised on an alleged violation of MCL 722.623 where the CPL’s definitions did not treat the coworker’s conduct as “child abuse” that triggers the statutory report to child protective services.
Decision
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition to O’Connell and Superior on the CPL-based failure-to-report theory.
- The court held that, under the CPL’s text and definitions, the circumstances did not trigger a mandatory report to the child protective agency under MCL 722.623 for abuse committed by the EMT coworker.
- The case was remanded for entry of summary disposition for defendants on the failure-to-report claim and for further proceedings on any remaining claims.
Legal Principles
- Statutory reporting duties under the CPL are determined by the language of MCL 722.623 read together with the CPL’s definitional provisions in MCL 722.622.
- A mandated reporter’s duty to report to the child protective agency arises only when there is reasonable cause to suspect “child abuse” or “child neglect” as those terms are defined by the CPL.
- Where the alleged perpetrator does not fall within the perpetrator categories used by the CPL’s definitions (as applied in this case), the CPL does not impose the specific duty to report to the child protective agency that the plaintiffs claimed.
- A negligence theory based on breach of a statutory reporting duty cannot proceed where the statute, properly construed, does not impose that duty on the defendants in the situation presented.
Conclusion
Doe v. Doe held that the Michigan Child Protection Law did not require the EMT driver or the ambulance company to report the coworker’s assault of the minor patient to child protective services under MCL 722.623, given how the CPL defines reportable “child abuse.” Because the asserted statutory duty did not apply, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and directed summary disposition for defendants on the CPL-based failure-to-report claim, leaving other potential theories for the trial court to address on remand.