We granted certiorari in this case to address the scope of the immunity defense for doctors who report suspected child abuse. Dr. Thomas Blaney and Jean Blaney sued Dr. Sara O’Heron and her employer, The Emory Clinic, after O’Heron made a report regarding suspected abuse by Thomas Blaney of his granddaughters. The trial court granted O’Heron summary judgment based on the immunity provided in OCGA § 19-7-5 f. The Court of Appeals reversed.1 Because the Court of Appeals failed to recognize that the statute provides immunity for those who have reasonable cause to make a report and for those who make a report in good faith, we reverse. The Blaneys’s daughter-in-law had first raised questions about possible abuse of her two small daughters after the children had spent the weekend with the Blaneys, their paternal grandparents, in Fayette County. The children’s mother contacted a doctor, a social worker, and the Department of Family and Children Services in Columbia County, where she, her husband, and the children resided, regarding her observations and suspicions. Columbia County DFACS reported the allegations of abuse to the Fayette County DFACS. The mother also directly contacted the Fayette County Sheriff’s department, which advised her to take the children to O’Heron for an examination. O’Heron examined the children and discussed the situation with the mother. A detective with Fayette County was also present for the examination. Following her examination, O’Heron made a verbal report of suspected abuse to the detective, which she supplemented with a written report four days later. The Blaneys were arrested and indicted for various offenses including child molestation, sodomy, incest, and contributing to the deprivation of a minor. Sometime later, a new assistant district attorney was assigned to the case and presented it to a second grand jury, which issued a “no bill.” The Fayette County District Attorney’s office subsequently nolle prossed the charges under the initial indictment. Then the Blaneys sued O’Heron and Emory for malicious prosecution, professional malpractice and ordinary negligence.
1. Nearly 40 years ago, the legislature enacted Georgia’s first law requiring the mandatory reporting of child abuse by physicians.2 That first law contained an immunity provision providing that physicians who in good faith make a report of child abuse shall be immune from civil liability.3 In numerous amendments to this law, the legislature has consistently expanded the reporting required and the immunity granted. The legislature has imposed the obligation to report on a wider variety of persons,4 made reports easier to make and prove,5 expanded the definition of abuse,6 expanded immunity,7 and imposed criminal penalties for the willful failure to make a report.8 The legislature’s conclusion that reporting is essential to protecting innocent children from abuse is abundantly clear. Furthermore, the legislature has specified that this law “shall be liberally construed so as to carry out the purposes thereof.”9 It is within this context that we must construe the requirements of OCGA § 19-7-5.
