Scott Ferris v. Milton S. Hershey Medical Cent
701 F. App'x 91
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Infant A.F. was born prematurely and with life-threatening complications in an ambulance parked outside a hospital ER.
- Parents Scott and Jodi Ferris refused certain newborn treatments (triple dye, erythromycin, Hepatitis B vaccine) and refused hospital observation; parents’ medical history (GBS/Hep B/Rh) was unknown or disputed.
- Hospital physicians, believing A.F. was at imminent risk, sought to treat her; county authorities assumed custody and the hospital administered care over parental objections.
- The Ferrises sued hospital physicians Ian M. Paul, M.D., and Caitlin J. Mallis, M.D., and county social worker Angelica Lopez‑Heagy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment seizure and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process) and brought a state-law false imprisonment claim against the social worker.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants; the Ferrises appealed limited aspects (e.g., alleged breach of a 24-hour discharge agreement asserted below but waived several new claims on appeal).
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the removals and actions were reasonable given exigent medical circumstances and that the social worker did not effectuate a seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hospital physicians unreasonably seized A.F. in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Ferris: Seizure was unconstitutional because treatments were unnecessary and no imminent danger justified removal | Hospital: Physicians reasonably believed A.F. faced imminent serious harm given prematurity, respiratory distress, unknown maternal history, parental refusal of treatment/observation | Held for defendants: exigent medical circumstances made the seizure reasonable |
| Whether Ferrises were denied Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process | Ferris: Seizure and deprivation lacked adequate process and was unreasonable | Defendants: Emergency justified temporary removal; prompt state-court authorization followed | Held for defendants: emergency justified initial deprivation; post-seizure procedures were adequate |
| Whether social worker violated Fourth Amendment by seizing A.F. | Ferris: Social worker participated in and enabled unlawful removal | Social worker: Lacked independent authority to seize; relayed medical info to police and DA; police effectuated seizure | Held for defendants: social worker did not effectuate seizure; no Fourth Amendment violation |
| Whether social worker committed state-law false imprisonment | Ferris: No imminent danger—seizure unlawful under state law | Social worker: Reasonably believed imminent danger; relied on medical professionals; acted within authority | Held for defendants: record shows imminent danger—summary judgment for social worker affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. City of Phila., 174 F.3d 368 (3d Cir. 1999) (social workers may rely on medical opinions in emergency custody decisions)
- Good v. Dauphin Cty. Soc. Servs., 891 F.2d 1087 (3d Cir. 1989) (exigent circumstances justify removal of a child)
- Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (procedural due process framework)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process balancing—opportunity to be heard at meaningful time)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (emergency removals may precede full procedural protections)
- Hollingsworth v. Hill, 110 F.3d 733 (10th Cir. 1997) (emergency child-safety removals without prior court order may be lawful)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2006) (nonmoving party must present record facts to defeat summary judgment)
- Fleck v. KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc., 981 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1992) (issues not raised below are generally waived on appeal)