Kakar Kurtz v. Dr. Marie Lupica

Background

The plaintiffs were Shveta Kakar Kurtz, Daniel L. Kurtz, their minor daughters A.K. and M.K., and the defendants included New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) officials, the City of New York, two hospitals, and medical professionals. The allegations arose after Daniel Kurtz dropped A.K. while changing her diaper. Weill Cornell physician Dr. Marie Lupica initially failed to diagnose A.K.’s femur fracture, while Mt. Sinai later diagnosed it.

Several medical professionals reported suspected abuse or neglect to ACS. ACS began removal proceedings in New York family court, and the children were separated from their parents or subject to restrictions on contact. After the parents produced medical evidence supporting an accidental fall and the effects of premature birth, ACS withdrew its petition, and the family court dismissed the proceeding with prejudice.

The parents alleged that the medical defendants and ACS had conspired to conceal Weill Cornell’s diagnostic error and retaliate against the family. They asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and state-law claims including malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, medical malpractice, loss of consortium and companionship, and defamation.

Rulings on the Federal Claims

The court held that the medical defendants were not state actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Reporting suspected child abuse, even if the report was false, did not by itself make private medical professionals government actors. The allegations also did not plausibly show that the medical defendants had conspired with ACS. The court therefore dismissed all federal claims against the medical defendants, including Dr. Lupica’s federal claims, and also dismissed the federal claims against Dr. Shaykh.

The court allowed the parents’ federal malicious-prosecution claim against the individual municipal defendants to proceed. Although the family-court proceeding was civil, the children’s removal and the restrictions on the parents’ contact with them were sufficiently serious to support the claim at the pleading stage. The court also held that the parents plausibly alleged that ACS had presented materially false or reckless information about a possible clavicle fracture, allowing them to overcome the usual presumption that a court-ordered removal was supported by probable cause.

The court dismissed the federal abuse-of-process, false-imprisonment, and conspiracy claims against the municipal defendants. It also dismissed the federal conspiracy claim under § 1985 because the complaint did not plausibly allege a conspiracy or discriminatory motive. The court allowed the parents’ § 1983 claim alleging violation of their substantive due-process right to family integrity to proceed against the individual municipal defendants, but dismissed the federal claims against the City of New York. The alleged facts did not establish a municipal policy or widespread practice required for municipal liability.

Rulings on the State Claims

The court allowed the state-law malicious-prosecution claim to proceed against the individual municipal defendants and the City of New York. It also allowed that claim to proceed against Dr. Lupica and Weill Cornell because the complaint plausibly alleged that Dr. Lupica knowingly made false reports that helped initiate the removal proceeding. The court dismissed the state-law malicious-prosecution claims against Dr. Ranade, Dr. Fabricant, Dr. Platt, Dr. Shaykh, and Karen Glass because the allegations showed, at most, reporting or providing medical information rather than actively initiating the proceeding.

The court dismissed the state-law abuse-of-process and false-imprisonment claims against all defendants. The parents had not plausibly alleged that defendants used the legal process for a collateral objective beyond the removal proceeding, and they had not alleged actual confinement supporting false imprisonment. The court dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims because the claims against the medical defendants were untimely and the claims against the municipal defendants duplicated the malicious-prosecution claims.

The court dismissed the loss-of-consortium and companionship claims because the parents did not address the defendants’ arguments against them. It dismissed the defamation claim as untimely because the alleged statements occurred between August and October 2018, more than one year before the action was filed.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the medical-malpractice claim against Dr. Lupica, Dr. Shaykh, and Weill Cornell based on the alleged failure to diagnose A.K.’s femur fracture. It held that A.K.’s prompt treatment elsewhere did not eliminate a possible claim based on the initial failure to diagnose. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the separate medical-malpractice claim against Dr. Ranade concerning unauthorized x-rays and dismissed that claim without prejudice to pursuing it in state court.

Disposition

Judge Engelmayer granted in full the motions by the HSS defendants and the Mt. Sinai defendants. He granted in part and denied in part the municipal defendants’ motion, and granted in part and denied in part the Weill Cornell defendants’ motion. The case proceeded only on: federal malicious prosecution against individual municipal defendants; the federal family-integrity claim against those defendants; state-law malicious prosecution against individual municipal defendants, the City, Dr. Lupica, and Weill Cornell; and the failure-to-diagnose medical-malpractice claim against Dr. Lupica, Dr. Shaykh, and Weill Cornell.