Jones v. County of Los Angeles

The Jones family — Jill, Michael, and their son G.J. — brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Dr. Claudia Wang violated their Fourth- and Fourteenth Amendment rights and committed various torts during her investigation into whether G.J. had been abused. The district court denied Dr. Wang summary judgment on her qualified immunity defense. We conclude that, resolving all factual disputes in the Joneses’ favor, the alleged conduct of Dr. Wang can support a claim that Dr. Wang violated the Joneses’' clearly established constitutional rights.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Dr. Wang appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment on her qualified immunity defense. We accept as true all of the Joneses’ evidence, and we draw all justifiable inferences in the Joneses’ favor. Tolan v. Cotton, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1863 , 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) (per curiam).

The events underlying this suit begin on the evening of February 24, 2010. As Jill Jones descended the steps from the loft in her Santa Monica condominium with her sleeping infant son G.J. in her arms, she tripped and G.J. slipped out of her grip. G.J. tumbled down several stairs and…

dissenting:

I find that Dr. Wang is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate either the Fourth Amendment or clearly established law. From Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), to Taylor v. Barkes, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2042 , 192 L.Ed.2d 78 (2015), the Supreme Court’s direction has been consistent: particularized facts and legal standards — not generalized propositions of law — determine whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity. The Court has stressed that “when properly applied, [qualified immunity] protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. at 2085 (internal quotations omitted). Applying these principles to Dr. Wang’s case, I cannot join the majority in denying qualified immunity to Dr. Wang, a respected physician, professor, and 23-year veteran of the UCLA Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect team whose actions were anything but malicious or incompetent.

I. Fourth Amendment Seizure

The record before us does not support a finding that Dr. Wang violated the Joneses’ constitutional rights. I disagree with the majority’s reasoning on a number of grounds.…

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Dr. Wang appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment on her qualified immunity defense. We accept as true all of the Joneses’ evidence, and we draw all justifiable inferences in the Joneses’ favor. Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1863 (2014) (per curiam).

The events underlying this suit begin on the evening of February 24, 2010. As Jill Jones descended the steps from the loft in her Santa Monica condominium with her sleeping infant son G.J. in her arms, she tripped and G.J. slipped out of her grip. G.J. tumbled down several stairs and landed on his head on the hardwood floor. Jill rushed G.J. to the Emergency Department at the Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center.

At the Emergency Department, a CT scan of G.J.’s head revealed a complex fracture on the back of G.J.’s skull. G.J.’s

JONES V. WANG

ribs were also fractured, but because the bones were still aligned, the fractures were not visible on the x-ray of G.J.’s chest done that day. Hospital staff made a routine report of G.J.’s injury to the LA County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), noting that G.J.’s injuries were consistent with…