Woman claims "I was sterlized against my will!" after having 9 children...

[DaemonSeid]

Why would a hospital surgically implant something that they were not supplying the patient themselves?

I would imagine that if something happened, the woman would have no legal recourse against the hospital, since she brought it in herself.

Which, again, makes no sense.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Why would a hospital surgically implant something that they were not supplying the patient themselves?

I would imagine that if something happened, the woman would have no legal recourse against the hospital, since she brought it in herself.

Which, again, makes no sense.

I didn't see that part. WTF??? Not just the bringing it in like she's bringing her own food to the movie, but I wouldn't think you'd want to put an IUD in immediately after delivery. I know she had a C section, but still, shouldn't your uterus have some time to get back to normal?

[PhoenixAzul]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I didn't see that part. WTF??? Not just the bringing it in like she's bringing her own food to the movie, but I wouldn't think you'd want to put an IUD in immediately after delivery. I know she had a C section, but still, shouldn't your uterus have some time to get back to normal?

Actually, after delivery is an ideal time to have an IUD inserted, since the cervix is flexible and open, so there is little need for extra dilation. IUD's are most easily inserted in women who have had a child, for the same reasons. Although they can be inserted in women who have not yet had a child, it can just be more painful/difficult...in these instances, it's best done during/right after the menstrual cycle.

Ask me how I know. hehehe, I love the NHS.

[WinniBug]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAzul

Actually, after delivery is an ideal time to have an IUD inserted, since the cervix is flexible and open, so there is little need for extra dilation. IUD's are most easily inserted in women who have had a child, for the same reasons. Although they can be inserted in women who have not yet had a child, it can just be more painful/difficult...in these instances, it's best done during/right after the menstrual cycle.

Ask me how I know. hehehe, I love the NHS.

I was told you had to wait until your 6-week check up, since during that time, your uterus is expelling all the extra stuff left over from the pregnancy?

[PhoenixAzul]

Originally Posted by WinniBug

I was told you had to wait until your 6-week check up, since during that time, your uterus is expelling all the extra stuff left over from the pregnancy?

Dunno about that end of it, I had mine as a non-baby haver. I kind of blocked that part of the lecture out. The guidelines are/were different in Britain as well. It's pretty difficult for a woman my age without children to get an IUD in the states...most OB/GYNs are pretty hesitant about it. Some of my friends have had their drs refuse to do it, and had to go to PP to get it done. My own OB/GYN in the states stood their questioning me on it for a good half hour. What part of "I don't want to take pills and I don't want children" isn't clear?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by WinniBug

I was told you had to wait until your 6-week check up, since during that time, your uterus is expelling all the extra stuff left over from the pregnancy?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too but couldn't think of a way to put it that wouldn't freak the men out. I'd think they'd want you to have at least one period before putting it in.

Again, YUCK!!!!!! at the whole concept.

[DaemonSeid]

For the GC Legal Eagles:

Is it odd that she waited 4 years to sue the Hospital?

This happened in December 2006.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

For the GC Legal Eagles:

Is it odd that she waited 4 years to sue the Hospital?

This happened in December 2006.

It's 3 years.

Also, can somebody explain what so called constitutional right was violated?

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Also, can somebody explain what so called constitutional right was violated?

Her RIGHT to have more kids than she can support!

(hehehehe)

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

It's 3 years.

Also, can somebody explain what so called constitutional right was violated?

Not necessarily saying that her Constitutional rights are violated, but reproductive rights can = Constitutional rights (they're thought of as belonging under the right to privacy, for those who think there's a Constitutional right to privacy).

Is it weird I didn't hear about this story, even though I live about 20 minutes away from Baystate?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

For the GC Legal Eagles:

Is it odd that she waited 4 years to sue the Hospital?

This happened in December 2006.

Not really ODD per se. Sometimes there are other factors going on such as attempts at settlement that are taking place before the actual suit is filed. I'm not saying that is what happened here though.

I wonder how the SOL and SOR are affected by waiting so long.

So did the doctors do it on purpose or was it negligence?

If it is the former, then yeah, they deliberately violated her rights.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

For the GC Legal Eagles:

Is it odd that she waited 4 years to sue the Hospital?

This happened in December 2006.

3 years -- and that's probably the statute of limitation. There very well may have been extensive pre-filing negotiations and investigation. We just don't know.

Usually, this sort of thing isn't going to hit the public airwaves until a court case is filed because when that happens the case becomes public info and finds its way to a reporter.

These sorts of cases are very popular because the media tends to love to report stories where the doctors did a good thing for society by playing God, whilst the cash-seeking plaintiff threatens those docs' malpractice carriers. For some reason, we never get to hear about real cases of malpractice where the doc operated while on painkillers or anything of that nature.../rant.

As far as what sorts of causes of action could be filed here? Well, there's battery for one. That's a voluntary causing of harmful and unwelcome contact with the being of another. Typically in an operation setting, the patient gives consent for certain types of contact but withholds consent for others, e.g., if you're undergoing open heart surgery and have consented to that, but the doc decides to remove what he thinks is a pre-cancerous mole, that's a battery, although in that case, you might only get nominal damages (one dollar).

Negligence is the other possible cause of action, but it's going to be a fall back position.

Battery is an intentional tort, so once you have causation and intent down, you don't have to prove that you were damaged and that the defendant had a duty of care which was breached, etc. (battery does not require any showing of damages).

Also, with battery, if you can prove an intentional (knowing) mindset, that opens up the door in many places to a higher award of punitive damages. Here in Oklahoma, you have to prove that the doctor did the bad thing knowingly AND with malice AND had a willful disregard for human life (and you have to prove those things to both the judge and the finder of fact [jury] in doing so to get the caps off of the punitive damages, our law is wonky and bought and paid for by the insurance lobby though, [there's even a taxpayer-funded fund to handle any punitive awards larger than a certain amount], but that's the law here, I don't know what the law is elsewhere, probably not nearly as tough.

Long story short, for this case, battery > negligence, both claims tie into medical malpractice.

The reason the plaintiff is likely taking up the civil rights posture might be the applicability of the Government Tort Claims Act (which will limit the award for negligence if the doc is, for example, a V.A. employee rather than in private practice). If the GTCA applies, damage awards are significantly lower.

Because of that, there's the spectre of a civil rights claim I suppose... if they win there, they get attorney's fees (which in a medmal case is pretty big) plus a cash award, but no punitive damages against the government. She'd have to prove that under the color of state law, the state actors deprived her of civil liberties. I'm not a big civil rights guy, but I'm scratching my head as to how this could have been accomplished under the color of any law.

It sounds like a run of the mill medmal case... go in for an appendectomy, come out minus a leg because of a mixup in paperwork. The "deprived of constitutional rights," is in all likelihood, either the plaintiff's 18th fall back position or it's just a theme to sell the 'horrible evil' that has been done here to the public, contaminating the jury pool and if this thing goes to trial (and it might), get more cash for the plaintiff.

If I were the attorney of the insurance company, I might just take this sucker to trial on the theory that while there may have been a breach in the standard of care, she's had 9 kids she can't afford, she's lost custody of three because of a showing that she was an unfit mother, she was seeking a long-term solution to keep her from getting pregnant, the docs gave her one better than a IUD, and therefore, she has not been damaged, in fact, she came out ahead.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Kevin

3 years -- and that's probably the statute of limitation. There very well may have been extensive pre-filing negotiations and investigation. We just don't know.

Usually, this sort of thing isn't going to hit the public airwaves until a court case is filed because when that happens the case becomes public info and finds its way to a reporter.

These sorts of cases are very popular because the media tends to love to report stories where the doctors did a good thing for society by playing God, whilst the cash-seeking plaintiff threatens those docs' malpractice carriers. For some reason, we never get to hear about real cases of malpractice where the doc operated while on painkillers or anything of that nature.../rant.

As far as what sorts of causes of action could be filed here? Well, there's battery for one. That's a voluntary causing of harmful and unwelcome contact with the being of another. Typically in an operation setting, the patient gives consent for certain types of contact but withholds consent for others, e.g., if you're undergoing open heart surgery and have consented to that, but the doc decides to remove what he thinks is a pre-cancerous mole, that's a battery, although in that case, you might only get nominal damages (one dollar).

Negligence is the other possible cause of action, but it's going to be a fall back position.

Battery is an intentional tort, so once you have causation and intent down, you don't have to prove that you were damaged and that the defendant had a duty of care which was breached, etc. (battery does not require any showing of damages).

Also, with battery, if you can prove an intentional (knowing) mindset, that opens up the door in many places to a higher award of punitive damages. Here in Oklahoma, you have to prove that the doctor did the bad thing knowingly AND with malice AND had a willful disregard for human life (and you have to prove those things to both the judge and the finder of fact [jury] in doing so to get the caps off of the punitive damages, our law is wonky and bought and paid for by the insurance lobby though, [there's even a taxpayer-funded fund to handle any punitive awards larger than a certain amount], but that's the law here, I don't know what the law is elsewhere, probably not nearly as tough.

Long story short, for this case, battery > negligence, both claims tie into medical malpractice.

The reason the plaintiff is likely taking up the civil rights posture might be the applicability of the Government Tort Claims Act (which will limit the award for negligence if the doc is, for example, a V.A. employee rather than in private practice). If the GTCA applies, damage awards are significantly lower.

Because of that, there's the spectre of a civil rights claim I suppose... if they win there, they get attorney's fees (which in a medmal case is pretty big) plus a cash award, but no punitive damages against the government. She'd have to prove that under the color of state law, the state actors deprived her of civil liberties. I'm not a big civil rights guy, but I'm scratching my head as to how this could have been accomplished under the color of any law.

It sounds like a run of the mill medmal case... go in for an appendectomy, come out minus a leg because of a mixup in paperwork. The "deprived of constitutional rights," is in all likelihood, either the plaintiff's 18th fall back position or it's just a theme to sell the 'horrible evil' that has been done here to the public, contaminating the jury pool and if this thing goes to trial (and it might), get more cash for the plaintiff.

If I were the attorney of the insurance company, I might just take this sucker to trial on the theory that while there may have been a breach in the standard of care, she's had 9 kids she can't afford, she's lost custody of three because of a showing that she was an unfit mother, she was seeking a long-term solution to keep her from getting pregnant, the docs gave her one better than a IUD, and therefore, she has not been damaged, in fact, she came out ahead.

Yeah I was thinking battery as well. especially if they actually did do it on purpose and it wasn't a mix-up.

As for the latter argument, I think anyone would have to be careful in making such an argument because we can't have doctors taking matters into their own hands and deciding things for the patient that THEY think are better for the patient.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Yeah I was thinking battery as well. especially if they actually did do it on purpose and it wasn't a mix-up.

As for the latter argument, I think anyone would have to be careful in making such an argument because we can't have doctors taking matters into their own hands and deciding things for the patient that THEY think are better for the taxpayers.

fixed...hehehe

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Yeah I was thinking battery as well. especially if they actually did do it on purpose and it wasn't a mix-up.

As for the latter argument, I think anyone would have to be careful in making such an argument because we can't have doctors taking matters into their own hands and deciding things for the patient that THEY think are better for the patient.

That's why I went with Battery. With Battery, you get straight to punitives (without all those nasty medmal caps). With malpractice, since it's a negligence based claim, I'm pretty sure you have to prove damages to win.

I'm definitely not a medmal guy and don't (yet) do civil rights cases, although I'm planning on getting around to calling up the federal Bar's pro bono folks to do pro bono prisoner civil rights claims against the state.... so maybe in a couple years I'll revive this thread and wax eloquent on the requirements of 42 USC 1983, et. seq... but not today