Woman sues doctors after failed abortion

[AKA_Monet]

2 medical situations here:

1) Most doctors that do abortions, mainly board certified OB/GYN's, don't EFF up on ALL fetus removals. They may EFF up of other finishing factors, i.e. rupturing the endometrium in the uterus or clipping the fallopians. But generally, they really cannot MISS the fetuses. They are visualized by ultrasound that is rather accurate. And the supersuction is scanned throughout the uterus...

2) There may be negligence of the doctors. The doctors may have actually not done the procedure because they were a part of this ultraconservative groups that say they'll do something and neglected to do it because they disagree with it due to personal convictions. They may have had a "mock pre-opt" work-up, there was anesthesia involved, but the procedure just was not done.

So basically, homegirl never got the procedure...

The real thing that probably happened is homegirl never followed thru with her appointments. She failed to show up for the actual procedural operation abortion. She showed up for her first one, where they do the ultrasound and see the location, the size of her uterus, safety and efficacy issues, then schedule the procedure date. And homegirl failed to show up...

The judge will throw out when the appointment records show her failure to comply.

And since she wants money, she's saying that she had a botched abortion because she's a crack whore that needs her slop and now she's lame enough to blame everyone else for her situation but herself.

[UGAalum94]

AKA Monet,

Wouldn't it seem that the chances that Planned Parenthood doctors are part of the super-conservative group would be pretty low? (That's who they are in this case, I'm pretty sure.) And surely such a group would be getting sued right and left right for malpractice? It's really shocking to me that a doctor could just get away with pretending to perform a specific procedure for very long.

I'm not second guessing you on this next point but wouldn't a lawyer investigate to see that woman showed up for her actual abortion appointment before she filed suit. That would seem to be a rock solid defense in any case. "We failed to perform your abortion because you didn't actually show up for it." You're right, I think, that it would get thrown out.

Anybody who lives where there's local coverage of the case have any additional information?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

Maybe I'm missing something... and maybe it's already been mentioned, but the abortion and everything took place in 2004. Why is this suit just happening NOW?

Originally Posted by kddani

Plenty of reasons. People have a certain amount of time in which they can bring a lawsuit, which is called the "statute of limitations." She may not have realized she had a legal claim. They may have been trying to settle it without filing suit (very likely). Maybe she wasn't emotionally ready to deal with it.

Exactly, and my guess is that the statute of limitations in this case is three years, meaning that even if she had been trying to deal with the matter without bringing suit, she was now at the point where she either had to file the suit or lose the right to sue. The news article seems to indicate that the statute of limitations would have begun to run in March 2004.

[lyrelyre]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The news article seems to indicate that the statute of limitations would have begun to run in March 2004.

I think the statute would actually be tolled until she knew or had reason to know that she was still pregnant. So that could be as late as September when she found out she was still pregnant. (I guess I need to get a life too)

I found an article about a study of first trimester abortions that said that 46 in a series of 65,000 had unintentional continued pregnancy.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by lyrelyre

I think the statute would actually be tolled until she knew or had reason to know that she was still pregnant. So that could be as late as September when she found out she was still pregnant. (I guess I need to get a life too).

I think I would argue that it shouldn't take from March until September to figure out that you're still pregnant.

I'm starting to forget what a life is.

[Kevin]

Would it be medically possible that the woman had twins and the doctor negligently only aborted one of the fetuses without doing the pre-op procedures Monet just mentioned?

I realize that this may be a really, really stupid question.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Would it be medically possible that the woman had twins and the doctor negligently only aborted one of the fetuses without doing the pre-op procedures Monet just mentioned?

I realize that this may be a really, really stupid question.

The best person to ask is sigkapgurl. Her mother is an OB/GYN. Maybe she'd have some insight.

[ASUADPi]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Would it be medically possible that the woman had twins and the doctor negligently only aborted one of the fetuses without doing the pre-op procedures Monet just mentioned?

I realize that this may be a really, really stupid question.

Honestly I can't see why not. Mainly because there have been pregnant women and they think they are having a single birth and it turns out they have twins. Usually the second twin was so high up the baby wasn't detected. I'm not an OB so I'm not sure why they wouldn't have detected a heartbeat but you never know.

3 years for statute of limitations. Hmm.

The lawyers on here, does it vary per "incident"? I ask because isn't rape like a 5 year statute of limitations?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

The lawyers on here, does it vary per "incident"? I ask because isn't rape like a 5 year statute of limitations?

Not a lawyer, but I do know that it does vary. It varies by state as well.

Rape is usually 5 years, and murder I believe is indefinite in all 50 states.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

3 years for statute of limitations. Hmm.

The lawyers on here, does it vary per "incident"? I ask because isn't rape like a 5 year statute of limitations?

Well, to begin with statutes of limitations vary from state to state. They also vary with causes of action (grounds for suit) -- for example, breach of contract, trespass, wrongful death, libel. And it also varies from state to state as to whether statutes of limitations apply to criminal charges, or only to some criminal charges.

Typically, statutes of limitations can range anywhere from six months to ten years. Three years is often a common 'default" statute of limitations -- that is, unless a statute specifically provides otherwise (such as one year for libel), the statute of limitations is three years.

[lyrelyre]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Would it be medically possible that the woman had twins and the doctor negligently only aborted one of the fetuses without doing the pre-op procedures Monet just mentioned?

I realize that this may be a really, really stupid question.

I actually read an article about a woman in the UK suing the hospital because her abortion only aborted one twin. So, I don't think it's a stupid question.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lyrelyre

I actually read an article about a woman in the UK suing the hospital because her abortion only aborted one twin. So, I don't think it's a stupid question.

If this was the case, I could see negligence being a pretty good case here. If the woman was obese, had other issues, perhaps moral issues with aborting after the point where the fetus was viable, etc., she might have a decent case. The law doesn't require one to take morally repugnant steps to mitigate losses.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Would it be medically possible that the woman had twins and the doctor negligently only aborted one of the fetuses without doing the pre-op procedures Monet just mentioned?

I realize that this may be a really, really stupid question.

There is a case in the UK of this happening. A woman had one of the fetuses aborted, but the second one was missed somehow... She sought and won money for the expenses incurred, if I remember correctly.

Edit: I should read all replies before posting.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Would it be medically possible that the woman had twins and the doctor negligently only aborted one of the fetuses without doing the pre-op procedures Monet just mentioned?

I realize that this may be a really, really stupid question.

Not a stupid question at all. I've been told of two women (who my mother knew) who had illegal abortions, and one of them was pregnant with twins. One twin was aborted, and the second twin "miscarried" later that night - much to the woman's surprise.

These were both in the 1950's, so I would imagine it would be really hard for this to happen with today's technology.

IMHO, any ultraconservative doctor who claims to give abortions has to be a bigger nutjob than pro-choice people think of other ultraconservatives. If you don't believe in abortion, don't masquerade as an abortionist!

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Not a stupid question at all. I've been told of two women (who my mother knew) who had illegal abortions, and one of them was pregnant with twins. One twin was aborted, and the second twin "miscarried" later that night - much to the woman's surprise.

These were both in the 1950's, so I would imagine it would be really hard for this to happen with today's technology.

IMHO, any ultraconservative doctor who claims to give abortions has to be a bigger nutjob than pro-choice people think of other ultraconservatives. If you don't believe in abortion, don't masquerade as an abortionist!

I could see in 1950's where there was no ultrasound techology only X-ray to localize the presence of fetuses.

But now, they have these piezo-tropic crystal, near MRI type, linear transducers for ultrasound, they can "see thru" the chair or board with these things--in this country.

And an ultrasound is done after a urine pregancy test, which is the SOP...

I dunno, but it is misleading to younger women who choose not the keep their pregnancies. I wish I could remember what year--1/2 years ago--that JAMA article. I have been unable to do a search...

I do know there was some NY Times article last year on "these groups" setting up shops with these high-end ultrasound machines some that folks can recreate their baby's image in 3-D.

Visual Sonics is the high-end ultrasound. We will be doing it for the heart.