Idaho emergency doctor sued for overriding parent's decision

A jury will decide if the physician exaggerated the risks of the parent's refusal of treatment in order to get the state involved.

By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. April 9, 2007.

A recent Idaho federal court ruling shows doctors should tread carefully when considering whether to get the state involved to ensure that a child gets critical treatment despite the parent's objections.

The court found, in a Feb. 26 ruling, that the state gave too broad of consent for the treatment of 5-week-old-Taige L. Mueller. Judge B. Lynn Winmill sent part of the case back to trial court to determine, among other questions, whether the doctor involved exaggerated the risks of the infant's condition to get the state to intervene so he could treat the child over her parent's refusal. No hearing date has been set.

In 2002, Corissa D. Mueller brought her daughter to the emergency department at Saint Luke's Regional Medical Center, Boise, with a 101.3 F temperature, court records state. Emergency physician Richard K. MacDonald, MD, saw the child. Consistent with the hospital's standard of care, he recommended antibiotics and a spinal tap to test for meningitis or other serious bacterial infections, for which the baby showed symptoms, court documents state.

Dr. MacDonald also explained to the mother the risks, including death, of leaving meningitis untreated. He also said the infant's condition could worsen quickly. Mueller, however, refused to authorize the spinal tap. She concluded from her own research that the procedure's risks outweighed the chances that her daughter had meningitis, records show.

Dr. MacDonald called a hospital social worker, who called state Child Protective Services. After he reiterated the risks to the police, the officers took custody of the child, and Dr. MacDonald performed the spinal tap.