The high-profile Take Care of Maya case, chronicled in the Netflix documentary, placed the complex legal doctrines of qualified immunity and good faith immunity directly into the public spotlight. While a jury initially awarded the Kowalski family $261 million in damages (later reduced to $213.5 million) against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital for claims including false imprisonment, medical negligence, and wrongful death, a Florida appellate court overturned the verdict. The ruling hinges not on a refutation of the facts, but on the interpretation of laws designed to shield mandated reporters and institutions from civil liability.
In August 2026, the Florida Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction in the Kowalski family’s appeal, leaving intact the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision to throw out the original verdict. The case now returns to the trial court for a significantly narrowed retrial, raising profound ethical questions regarding professional accountability versus institutional protection.
The background of the dispute
The Kowalski family’s case began with a diagnostic and treatment dispute between Maya’s treating outpatient physicians and doctors at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. Maya had been diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and was receiving specialist-directed outpatient ketamine therapy. When hospitalized for an acute flare, hospital physicians, led by a child abuse pediatrician, disagreed with the CRPS diagnosis and treatment, alleging factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA) and medical child abuse.
Maya was placed in state custody and detained in the hospital under the supervision of child protection authorities and hospital staff rather than a pain management team. The family alleged, and the original jury found, that the physical separation and administrative pressure contributed to the suicide of Maya’s mother, Beata Kowalski.
Real physician voices, twice a week
Free, and one click to unsubscribe.
When the family brought a civil lawsuit against the hospital, a jury ruled in favor of the Kowalskis on counts of false imprisonment, battery, medical negligence, fraudulent billing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment under Florida’s child abuse reporting immunity statute (Florida Statute 39.203). The appellate panel did not rule that medical child abuse had occurred, nor did it find Beata Kowalski guilty of FDIA. Instead, it concluded that the hospital was statutorily protected under “good faith participation” in state child protection activities. How can a jury find severe civil wrongdoing, yet an institution remain shielded from financial and legal accountability?
Qualified immunity vs. good faith immunity
Understanding this outcome requires distinguishing between two intersecting legal shields:
- Qualified immunity: A federal legal doctrine that protects government officials (such as state-employed social workers, police officers, or county child abuse pediatricians) from personal liability in civil lawsuits, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights
- Good faith immunity: A statutory protection enacted in state law (such as Florida Chapter 39) that shields any person or institution, including mandatory reporters like nurses, private hospital staff, and non-government health care facilities, from civil or criminal liability when reporting or participating in investigations of suspected child abuse
In practice, both doctrines are colloquially criticized as granting a “right to lie.” This critique highlights how these shields make it extraordinarily difficult to hold professionals accountable even when allegations are built on unverified assumptions, omitted medical evidence, or mischaracterized records.
To overcome qualified immunity in court, a plaintiff must meet a nearly insurmountable standard: proving a willful violation of a “clearly established” right by citing prior case law with nearly identical facts where a violation was explicitly ruled unconstitutional. Similarly, under good faith statutory immunity, courts presume the reporter or participating institution acted in “good faith,” shifting the heavy legal burden onto grieving families to prove actual bad faith or malice.
In child welfare cases, these protections frequently function as a pre-trial wall. Cases are regularly dismissed before reaching the discovery phase, preventing families from subpoenaing records or presenting evidence of systemic misrepresentation.
The Hardwick exception: an outlier in accountability
Instances where courts refuse to grant immunity to child protection officials remain exceptionally rare. In the landmark 2017 case Hardwick v. County of Orange, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied immunity to social workers accused of maliciously using perjured testimony and fabricated evidence to remove children from their mother. The court firmly rejected the assertion that state workers possessed a “right to lie.”
However, Hardwick stands as an outlier. In the vast majority of cases, statutory and qualified immunity doctrines continue to serve as broad shields for both state workers and the private institutions acting alongside them.
Higher standard of education, higher standard of accountability
Good faith immunity laws were originally created to protect lay community reporters, such as scout leaders, coaches, or neighbors who lack clinical training, so they could report genuine concerns without fearing costly lawsuits. However, extending broad, near-absolute immunity to licensed medical professionals, master’s-level social workers, and specialized child abuse pediatricians fundamentally distorts this framework. Health care professionals hold specialized licenses, advanced clinical education, and a sworn duty to “do no harm.” They are trained to evaluate complex, objective medical records and distinguish between rare disease presentations (such as CRPS or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome) and caregiver-fabricated illness.
When a professional omits exculpatory specialist records or misrepresents a child’s medical history to secure a state hold, that conduct should fall outside the bounds of “good faith.” Granting sweeping immunity to highly educated clinicians removes the institutional check-and-balance necessary to prevent catastrophic administrative errors.
Where the case stands today
With the Florida Supreme Court declining to review the appellate reversal in August 2026, the reduced $213.5 million judgment will not be reinstated. The case returns to Sarasota County for a retrial limited to specific surviving counts, primarily focused on Maya’s individual claims of emotional distress, battery, and medical negligence, without the possibility of punitive damages or wrongful death recovery for Beata’s death.
The ongoing legacy of the Kowalski case exposes a deep flaw in how mandatory reporting and immunity laws intersect with family rights. When legal doctrines prioritize shielding institutions over verifying clinical accuracy, families are left without constitutional recourse. True child protection requires evidence-based accountability, ensuring that the immense authority to separate a family is never exercised without meaningful checks, balance, and transparency.
Erin Daugherty is a nurse.
