Surveillance or Invasion of Privacy? Judge Allows Family's Case Against Hospital To Continue.

One side claims invasion of privacy. The other insists it was necessary to determine if child abuse was occurring and that they did nothing wrong. The discovery of 38 days of secret surveillance in a children's hospital shined a light on questionable accusations.

In a case involving rare diseases and poor decisions, a judge denied most of San Diego County's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the parents of a child being treated at Rady Children's Hospital. A years-long battle will continue as a family seeks general and punitive damages for claims that include civil rights violations, intrusion into private affairs, and parents losing custody of their ill child for almost a year.

Adolescence, Interrupted

Madison Meyer was an active child who seemed oddly prone to suffering injuries. By the time she became a teenager, she had broken a foot, both wrists, a finger, and had undergone surgery for a chronically balky knee.

In 2016, the then 13-year-old dislocated her shoulder at surf camp. It refused to heal properly, even after corrective surgery. Other issues began to surface as her health deteriorated. Her parents, William Meyer and Dana Gascay, traveled the country with her as they searched for a diagnosis.

In 2019, doctors in New York determined the now-bedridden Meyer was suffering from hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Requiring around-the-clock care, Meyer and her family returned to San Diego and the Rady Children's Hospital in January 2019. Her parents set up a makeshift bed in her room and at least one of them was always with her.

Unknown to the family, the nursing staff wasn't the only one keeping an eye on them.

Best Intentions?

According to court documents, the San Diego County's child abuse hotline received an anonymous call in December 2018. The caller accused Gascay of interfering with hospital staff and tampering with her daughter's IV pump. The law requires that all credible allegations of child abuse be investigated.

The investigator found no evidence of abuse. One of the people her report went to was Doctor Shalon Neinow, the child abuse pediatrician at Rady and a well-regarded individual in her field. After reviewing the case, Nienow became suspicious that Meyer's parents were engaging in a form of medical child abuse called Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (formerly known as Munchausen by proxy).

Under this abuse, parents either injure their children or force them to lie in order to receive medical treatment and attention. Nienow recommended the incoming Meyer be placed in a room with hidden cameras. The lawsuit claims that Nienow had Elizabeth Reese, one of her staff members, call the child abuse hotline and claim that Meyer, at the urging of her mother, was purposely dislocating her shoulder and faking other injuries.

For the next 38 days, the hospital recorded Meyer's room without pause. The suit alleges that this included Meyer being changed and cleaned by her mother in addition to during private medical procedures.

Meanwhile, the second investigation for potential child abuse began. Hospital staff told the investigator they saw no evidence of abuse. One of the experts on hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome in New York said the ailment is often confused with child abuse.

However, Nienow told the investigator that the injuries Meyer had suffered in 2013 had been faked and that her parents needed to be removed to save Meyer's life. This was used to petition a judge to put Meyer in protective custody. On March 7, 2019, her parents were issued the shocking news as their hospital passes and access to their daughter were revoked without notice.

Over the next 11 months, Meyer's parents were only permitted two one-hour supervised visits per week. The San Diego County Superior Court commissioner awarded custody back to the parents in February 2020.

Defining Privacy

The parents filed suit against San Diego County, Rady Children's Hospital, Dr. Nienow, Elizabeth Reese, and several others associated with the child abuse claims and covert surveillance in February 2021. They cited the extended recording of their room as a violation of their right to privacy under federal and state laws. The other charges include civil rights violation and infliction of emotional distress.

The defendants moved for dismissal on the grounds that the expectation of privacy in a hospital room was unreasonable. They also cited the necessity of investigating child abuse claims provided justification for their actions.

U.S. District Judge Robert Huie disagreed, stating that even a room frequently visited by hospital staff provided a temporary zone of privacy. He also dismissed the county's claim of qualified immunity, noting that the recording had taken place without a warrant.

Huie did dismiss charges against a group of hospital and county defendants that didn't meet the requirements for specificity. He also found no basis for the family's claim of a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Dr. Nienow's insistence that medical child abuse was occurring without any apparent proof will likely be the focus of the trial. If the lengthy surveillance footage indeed offers no corroborating evidence, it may well be her undoing.

Related Resources

• Are You a Mandatory Reporter? (FindLaw's Family Law)
• How To Report and Get Help for Child Abuse (FindLaw's Child Abuse Law)