RantWoman reminds her readers of her Blog as File cabinet model of blog content. If RantWoman just needed file cabinet functions and RantWoman posts most of her interpreter-related file cabinet items on her other blog, why post this item here? It is definitely way too much information for easy digestion in the first place. In the second place, the exact applicability of things to do with obligations of health care interpreters in RantWoman's Meeting or Yearly Meeting is a long stretch at best. On the other hand the term mandatory reporters comes accompanied by question marks in certain requests from Yearly Meeting committees for input. RantWoman is clear that there are GOOD QUESTIONS here.
Because of interpreting, because of doing lots of projects involving people of various ages, disabilities, and other vulnerabilities, RantWoman has more occasion to have to go near the topic than lots of people who for instance have been turning up their noses at sharing efforts with RantWoman. RantWoman is especially thinking of one conversation with a Friend from her Meeting about this topic. The Friend seemed to RantWoman not to have interacted with the fact that some people just encounter this concept as part of their everyday lives and that informs how they respond when certain challenging issues come up.
The conversation about mandatory reporters is only one of several where RantWoman senses several things going on. RantWoman frequently feels something is unfinished or concluded inadequately specifically because RantWoman cannot read faces and there assuredly is not expected feedback occurring. HOWEVER, RantWoman is also hearing a vibe she needs pretty thoroughly to test to the effect that if one or more Friends do not know something, they tend to think it does not need to be known or they do not need to have anything to do with it. RantWoman would not necessarily mind NOT having the experiences she has; unfortunately sometimes these experiences either evoke RantWoman's latent Messiah complex or make RantWoman kind of impatient with other's lack of awareness. And yet, the question marks remain.
But now the text of the article.
http://www.probono.net/healthlaw/library/attachment.61990
Health Care Interpreters: Are They Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse?
I. Introduction
As the nation continues to diversify and more health care providers are
using interpreters to communicate with their patients, one issue that arises is whether interpreters are covered by mandatory child abuse reporting laws.
Members of some professions are mandated by state law to report known and
suspected cases of child abuse seen within the course of their
employment.[2]
most states require health care workers to report child abuse, the laws are not clear if interpreters in health care settings fall within the parameters of the health care profession. It is important that interpreters know whether or not they fall within a state’s mandatory reporter category, as they could be liable for not reporting cases of child abuse. Failure to report cases of abuse is a misdemeanor in many states.
II. Are Health Care Interpreters Mandatory Reporters?
Individuals who are required to report usually have direct contact with
children. Some state statutes are very explicit in how they define health
care workers, while others are not. Depending on the wording and
interpretation of a statute, an interpreter may or may not fall into this
designation and be a mandatory reporter. Although interpreters generally
work in clinical settings with a practitioner who is usually required to
report, interpreters cannot assume that the practitioner will report a child abuse case. The wording of a mandatory reporting statute may independently require the interpreter to report.
Whether an interpreter has a duty to report suspected or known child abuse
depends on the laws of a particular state. Those who must report pursuant to state reporting laws generally fit into four categories. The state breakdown is as follows:
· Four states[4]
“any person” or “every person” to report
· Thirty-three states[5]
health care workers or “hospital personnel” to report
· Thirteen states[6]
“any person” or “every person” and health care workers to report[7]
requires “any person” or “every person” and “professionals” to report[8]
ascertain whether interpreters are required to report child abuse observed
in health care settings.[9]
the reporting statutes in those states specifically requires interpreters to report. However, three states have adopted statutes that require all persons to report suspected abuse regardless of their profession. Four states require “hospital personnel” to report, which may sometimes include
interpreters (see below). Two of the ten states have adopted both the
catchall “any person” provision, and a specific health care worker
provision. One state has an “any person” as well as a “professional”
provision. Only one state clearly did not require health care interpreters
to report child abuse.
a. The “Any Person” or “Every Person” Requirement
Three of the ten states we examined require “any person” or “every person”
to report suspected cases of child abuse. These states are Florida, New
Jersey, and North Carolina. For example, in New Jersey, the statute states
that “any person having reasonable cause to believe that a child has been
subjected to child abuse or acts of child abuse shall report….”[10]
Although Florida has an “any person” requirement, the state additionally
requires health care workers to give their name when making a report of
child abuse. Individuals who are not health care workers (or members of
certain other professions listed in the statute) are allowed to report
anonymously.[11]
b. The “Health Care Worker” Requirement
Of the ten states we examined, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York require some categories of health care workers to report suspected cases of child abuse.
New York requires “hospital personnel engaged in the admission, examination, care or treatment of persons” to report child abuse and neglect.[12]
whether or not health care interpreters fall into this category depends on
whether (1) they are hospital “personnel;” and (2) they are engaged in the
“admission, examination, care or treatment of persons.” For example, a full time interpreter employed by a hospital would likely be considered hospital “personnel,” while an interpreter who independently contracted with a hospital might not be. If interpreters are hospital personnel, the second question is whether they are engaged in “admission, examination, care or treatment.” If an interpreter is used to communicate with LEP patients in the hospital admissions process, they are likely to be considered mandatory reporters.
Illinois and Massachusetts have statutory language that requires reporting
from similar personnel, with the only difference being that hospital
personnel engaged in admissions are not included.[13]
California exhaustively lists every profession that is required to report,
but does not list interpreters or include a category as broad as “health
care worker,” as do the three states above.[14]
California’s statute also requires child abuse reporting by persons who are currently licensed under a section of the Business and Professions Code;[15]
interpreters are not among those so licensed. Therefore, health care
interpreters are not mandated to report child abuse.
c. The “Any Person” and a “Health Care Worker” Requirement
A state with an “any” or “every” person mandatory reporting provision
obviously requires all interpreters to report child abuse because they
definitely fall within the catch-all “any”/“every” person. Of the states
examined, New Mexico and Maryland have adopted the “any person” requirement, augmented by a specific requirement for certain types of health care workers to report child abuse. While Maryland has also adopted the “any person” requirement, it also has a separate requirement for health practitioners.[16]
Maryland’s statutory definition of health practitioner does not encompass
interpreters, yet the “any person” requirement obligates interpreters to
report cases of child abuse. New Mexico’s health care worker provision is
limited to physicians, residents and interns, although interpreters would be included under the “every person” provision.[17]
d. The “Any Person” and “Professional” Requirement
Like the states above which have a health care worker requirement in
addition to an “any person” requirement, Texas requires “any person” as well as “professionals” to report child abuse.[18]
Texas, interpreters are obligated to report any suspected case of child
abuse under the “any person” requirement.
Other states may use “professional” instead of “health care worker” and thus an examination of the Texas requirement may be helpful. The Texas statute defines a professional as “an individual who is licensed or certified by the state or who is an employee of a facility licensed, certified, or operated by the state and who, in the normal course of official duties or duties for which a license or certification is required, has direct contact with children.”[19]
Currently, Texas has no licensure or certification requirement for
interpreters; however, an interpreter falls into this category if they are
employed by a hospital or other licensed facility. The question will
therefore be the meaning of “employee” and it is likely independent
contractors would be excluded under this provision.
III. Other Important Components of Mandatory Reporting Laws
There are several other important components regarding failure to report and protections for good faith reporting. Interpreters need to know these
requirements because a failure to report can have negative repercussions.
Failure to report a suspected case is a misdemeanor in six of the states we examined –California, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, New York and Texas.[20]
Illinois, a first violation is a misdemeanor and any subsequent failure to
report is considered a felony.[21]
Massachusetts fines non-reporters up to $1000.[22]
Jersey, a person is deemed a “disorderly person” for failing to report child abuse.[23]
Carolina and Maryland have no punishment for non-reporting.
Finally, most states give immunity from civil and criminal liability to
mandatory reporters who report in good faith. If a health care interpreter
suspects child abuse and reports it, but later the child abuse charge is
determined to be unfounded, the interpreter cannot be held liable for
reporting what he/she believed to be abuse. All ten states examined here
give this immunity.
IV. Conclusion
To determine whether health care interpreters are required to report child
abuse in a state, one should examine the state’s child abuse and neglect
statute regarding mandatory reporting. The National Clearinghouse on Child
Abuse and Neglect Information has produced a chart with citations to every
state’s child abuse laws. The chart is also useful as a quick guide for the individuals and/or professions who must report child abuse and neglect.[24]
Checklist: What to look for in a state mandatory reporting statute:
* Is there an “any person” requirement clause?
If yes, then all health care interpreters have a mandatory reporting duty,
and you need not go any farther.
If no, check if another provision may apply to interpreters
* IIs there a health care worker, health personnel or hospital
personnel requirement clause?
If yes, then look to see if a health care interpreter would fit within such a profession. If the terms are not defined within the clause, look for a definitions provision, usually in an earlier subsection of the statute or in cases decided by the courts in your state.
* Is the interpreter considered a hospital “employee” or “personnel,”
as opposed to an independent contractor or an employee of an interpreter
service?
If yes, the interpreter must report
If no, check if another provision may apply to interpreters
If no, check if another provision may apply to interpreters
* Is the interpreter engaged in the activities covered by the statute
– e.g. admission, examination, care or treatment of patients?
If yes, the interpreter must report
If no, check if another provision may apply to interpreters
* Look for other relevant provisions:
Is there punishment for non-reporting?
Is there immunity for good faith reporting?
_____
This report was made possible through the generous support of The California Endowment.
There may be a similar reporting requirement for elder abuse, but that is
beyond the scope of this paper.
For a breakdown of all states, see National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, Statutes At-a-Glance, Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect (Feb. 2002), available at
http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/sag/manda.pdf.
Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina and Wyoming. See
http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/sag/manda.pdf.
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New
York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. See
http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/sag/manda.pdf.
Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Utah. See
http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/sag/manda.pdf.
Although it may seem redundant and illogical, many state statutes contain a
provision requiring health care workers or professionals to report child
abuse in addition to having a provision requiring “any” or “every” person to do so. Why this is so and how it originated is beyond the scope of this
paper.
Other states from the thirteen that have an “any” or “every” person and
health care worker requirement may fit into this category, but that is
beyond the scope of this paper and not available from the chart cited above.
The chosen states were California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Texas.
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:6-8.10 (West 2002).
Fla. Stat. Ann. §39.201(1)(b) (West 2003).
N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 413(1) (McKinney 2003).
325 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/4 (2001 & Supp. 2003); Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 119, § 51A (Law. Co-op 2003).
Cal. Penal Code § 11165.7 (West 2003).
Cal. Penal Code § 11165.7(21) (West 2003).
Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law §§5-704-705 (2002).
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-4-3(A) (Michie 2002).
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 261.101 (Vernon 2002).
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 261.101(a)-(b) (Vernon 2002).
See Cal. Penal Code § 11166(b) (West 2003); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 39.205 (West
2003); 325 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/4 (2001 & Supp. 2003); N.M. Stat. Ann. §
32A-4-3(F) (Michie 2002); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 420 (McKinney 2003); Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § 261.109 (Vernon 2002).
325 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/4 (2001 & Supp. 2003).
Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 119, § 51A (Law. Co-op 2003).
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:6-8.14 (West 2002). A disorderly persons offense is a
petty offense and is not a crime. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:1-4 (West 2003).
National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, Statutes
At-a-Glance, Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect (Feb. 2002),
available at http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/sag/manda.pdf.
* Library
* News
* Roster
* About NHeLP
* Site Help
© 1999-2011 Pro Bono Net
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment