Photo Credit: Contact Us, Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/patient-care/locations/johns-hopkins-all-childrens-hospital (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).
Authored by: Isabelle Duerr
The name Maya Kowalski may sound familiar. A 2023 documentary, released on Netflix, titled “Take Care of Maya” details the Kowalski family’s story.[1] It focuses mainly on the family’s oldest daughter Maya.[2] In 2015, at age nine, Maya was diagnosed with a central nervous system disorder called Complex Regional Pain Disorder (“CRPS”).[3]
CRPS is a rare disorder characterized by chronic pain, leading to tissue atrophy and muscle tightening.[4] Initial treatments did not work for Maya, and eventually she began receiving ketamine.[5] The ketamine treatments were the most successful treatment that Maya received for her CRPS symptoms.[6] However, on October 7, 2016, the ketamine was not working to treat her excruciating pain, and Maya, who was ten years old at the time, was brought to Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital (“JHACH”) by her father.[7]
Eventually, Maya’s mother, Beata, arrived and requested Maya receive ketamine.[8] Because of this request and other inconsistencies in her story, the JHACH social worker called the Department of Children and Families hotline and reported suspected abuse, that Maya and Beata had Munchausen Syndrome by proxy. [9] This syndrome is characterized as a form of child abuse where a parent, usually the mother, claims their child is sick by making up symptoms or causing symptoms to manifest.[10] Hospital staff believed that Beata and Maya had this syndrome and that because of this, Maya did not actually have CRPS.[11]
Six days after her admission to JHACH, Maya was taken into the Department’s custody.[12] The next day, after a hearing, Maya was placed in the shelter care of the Department, ordered to have no contact with Beata, and only her father was permitted to visit her.[13] Maya alleged that multiple instances happened while she was in the hospital’s care that were abusive, including putting the commode far away from her to get her to walk to it, verbal accosting, being prevented from speaking Polish with her mother on FaceTime, taking pictures of her undressed, and other allegations.[14]
On January 6, 2017, the court ordered that Maya remain at JHACH after a hearing; the next day, Beata committed suicide.[15] Maya was released six days after.[16] In October 2018, 21 months after Maya’s release, the Kowalski family sued JHACH, including in their complaint causes of action for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death for intentional infliction of emotional distress, medical negligence, battery, fraudulent billing, among others.[17] The case went to trial on September 14, 2023, and on November 9 the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Kowalskis on all claims.[18] JHACH appealed after the trial court entered the final judgment.[19]
JHACH’s main argument on appeal was that it was immune from liability for essentially all of the claims, except battery, because of Fla. Stat. § 39.203.[20] This statute provides “immunity from liability in cases of child abuse, abandonment, or neglect,” for anyone who, in good faith, makes a report to the Department.[21] In reversing the jury’s verdict, the Court of Appeals relied almost entirely upon this statute.[22] In doing so, the Court reasoned that because the statute protects actions that occur, in good faith, while “implementing the dependency court orders,” JHACH is immune from liability for anything that might have occurred from such implementation.[23] The opinion then went on to state that nothing in the record indicates that JHACH’s actions were not done in good faith to comply with and implement the dependency court order.[24] Therefore, the trial court’s failure to acknowledge as such was an error.[25]
The Court of Appeals then went count by count and disposed of the Kowalski’s claims regarding false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, medical negligence, fraudulent billing, and the award of punitive damages because of the application of the statute to the facts.[26]
Beginning with false imprisonment, the Court of Appeals reasoned that JHACH’s actions of refusing to let Maya be released from the hospital between her admission and the date that the Department took her into its custody were protected by statute, no evidence was presented that JHACH’s actions were not in good faith, and therefore the directed verdict motion should have been granted.[27]
Next, the Court moved to the intentional infliction of emotional distress allegations for both Beata and Maya.[28]In first considering Beata, the Court held that there was insufficient evidence to allege that JHACH intended to direct the outrageous conduct at Beata because many of JHACH’s actions have immunity from liability.[29] Moving to Maya, the Court reiterated that many of JHACH’s actions were immune and therefore “cannot be used to establish liability.”[30]Further, the Court reasoned that under Florida law, IIED must be based individually, and not be based on other torts.[31]Because Maya’s assertion of IIED relied almost entirely on evidence supporting other tort claims, it failed to meet the IIED threshold and the Court disposed of both IIED claims.[32]
The Court proceeded to dispose of the medical negligence claim because of JHACH’s immunity. The Court then disposed of the jury’s award of punitive damages, stating, “there is no clear and convincing evidence that JHACH actively and knowingly participated in or engaged in intentional misconduct of gross negligence.”[33] The trial court, the Court of Appeals reasoned, should never have submitted the claims of punitive damages to the jury.[34] The last claim that the Court of Appeals considered was the fraudulent billing claim.[35] The Court disposed of this claim, reasoning that no evidence was presented that shows that JHACH “made a false statement of material fact in billing.”[36]
After disposing of the claims of false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, medical negligence, and fraudulent billing, the Court of Appeals ordered a new trial on the remaining claims with its application of the statute to be used by the trial court.[37] The Court of Appeals stated that a new trial was proper because of the stark number of errors in the trial court’s interpretation of the statute.[38]
In a new trial, Maya and her family will only be able to retry “the IIED claim brought on behalf of Maya and the remaining false imprisonment, battery, and medical negligence claims.”[39] All other original claims alleged were disposed of by the Court of Appeals and not able to be brought again in a new trial.[40]
Judge Smith wrote a concurring opinion agreeing with the majority but elaborating on Maya’s IIED claim.[41] Ultimately, Judge Smith agreed that Maya’s IIED claim should be retired but stated that she believes that on remand “the trial judge will have to weigh whether or not some of the facts fall within chapter 39 immunity would be relevant and admissible on retrial as they relate to Maya’s IIED claims.”[42] She further reasoned that she agreed with Maya’s argument that the Florida statute was not intended to provide immunity from IIED claims.[43] Judge Smith further reasoned that even with the stripping of the evidence protected by JHACH’s immunity, there is still enough evidence to support Maya’s IIED claim.[44]
A motion for a rehearing and rehearing en banc on these issues was denied by the Court of Appeals.[45] JHACH and the Kowalski family attempted to settle their dispute in mediation after the opinion was released, but this was unsuccessful.[46] The Kowalski family appealed the decision of the Florida Court of Appeals to the Florida Supreme Court on February 4th, 2026.[47]
[1] Take Care of Maya, Netflix (2023).
[2] Id.
[3] Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hosp., Inc. v. Kowalski, 425 So. 3d 645, 651 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025).
[4] Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, Mayo Clinic (2022) https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/crps-complex-regional-pain-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20371151 (last visited Mar. 4, 2026).
[5] Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hosp., Inc., 425 So. 3d at 651.
[6] Id. at 652.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 653, 664.
[9] Id.
[10] Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, Medline Plus (July 1, 2025) https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001555.htm (last visited Mar. 18, 2026).
[11]Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hosp., Inc., 425 So. 3d at 653.
[12] Id. at 652.
[13] Id. at 652-53.
[14] Id. at 653-54.
[15] Id. at 655.
[16] Id.
[17] Id. at 651, 656.
[18] Id. at 656.
[19]Id.
[20] Id. at 656-57.
[21] Fla. Stat. § 39.203.
[22] Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hosp., Inc., 425 So. 3d at 659-69.
[23] Id. at 659.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Id. at 661-70.
[27] Id. at 662.
[28] Id. at 662-65.
[29] Id. at 664.
[30] Id.
[31] Id. at 665.
[32] Id.
[33] Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hosp., Inc., 425 So. 3d at 667.
[34] Id.
[35] Id. at 668-69.
[36] Id. at 669.
[37] Id. at 669-70.
[38] Id.
[39] Id. at 670.
[40] Id.
[41] Id. at 670 (Smith, J., concurring).
[42] Id. at 674.
[43] Id.
[44] Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hosp., Inc., 425 So. 3d at 674 (Smith, J., concurring).
[45] Appellee’s Motion of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc is Denied, Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hosp., Inc. v. Kowalski, No. 2D2025-0382 (Jan. 4, 2026).
[46] Alexandra Todd & Thad Randazzo, Kowalski Family Mediation Ends Without Settlement After $211M Verdict Reversal, WWSB (Dec. 5, 2025) https://www.mysuncoast.com/2025/12/05/kowalski-family-mediation-ends-without-settlement-after-211m-verdict-reversal/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2026).
[47] Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction, Florida Supreme Court, Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hosp., Inc. v. Kowalski, No. 2D2025-0382 (Feb. 4, 2026).