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

[als463]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

That is not the least bit relevant to this story. I don't think people should have babies and not take care of them, but this isn't really about that. Allegedly this woman elected to have one procedure and they performed a different one. Whether you like her lifestyle or not, if this is true, then it is basic medical malpractice and you can't have people deciding the merit of her case based on whether they agree with her having so many kids.

How is talking about her abusing the system not relevant to thread? Other people said the same thing. It might be about that. It may not have been right for them to perform this surgery/ operation without her consent, but maybe instead of crying that she wasn't treated properly, we should give these Doctors a pat on the back.

P.S. Psi U MC Vito, I heart you...

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Again I ask, what constitutional rights have been violated? Yes I do do agree human rights have been violated, but what does this mess have to do with the Constitution?

Where does it say that she (or her lawyer) said that they violated her constitutional rights? All I'm seeing is that she's saying they violated her reproductive rights, which they did.

Originally Posted by als463

How is talking about her abusing the system not relevant to thread? Other people said the same thing. It might be about that. It may not have been right for them to perform this surgery/ operation without her consent, but maybe instead of crying that she wasn't treated properly, we should give these Doctors a pat on the back.

Might be relative to the thread, is not relative to the case. I'm not one for handing out pats on the back for medical malpractice, because that is (allegedly) what happened.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by agzg

Where does it say that she (or her lawyer) said that they violated her constitutional rights? All I'm seeing is that she's saying they violated her reproductive rights, which they did.

Right here.

Savicki’s attorney, Max Borten of Waltham, alleges that his client’s human and constitutional rights were violated and that the hospital had a “total breakdown of protocols.”

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Right here.

Missed that. The GC legal eagles would have to draw the connection there.

[als463]

LOL...Did you guys check out the comments section? You have people on there complaining about it, yet they clearly didn't read through it. I get it that the story upsets people, but at least read through it before you comment on it. One guy wrote something about how if she is living on the system or on disability, then she should be sterilized. I agree that she should be sterilized, but it clearly states in the story that she is living off the system and on disability. People are making comments about the story saying, "Well if this...then that," without actually seeing what they are talking about was actually addressed. I love it!

[Gusteau]

Originally Posted by agzg

Might be relative to the thread, is not relative to the case. I'm not one for handing out pats on the back for medical malpractice, because that is (allegedly) what happened.

THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS.

Wow, I'm breaking all my GC rules tonight - 1. Using "THIS" is annoying., 2. Don't talk about "issues" on GC, stick to Greek Life.

[ASUADPi]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

That is not the least bit relevant to this story. I don't think people should have babies and not take care of them, but this isn't really about that. Allegedly this woman elected to have one procedure and they performed a different one. Whether you like her lifestyle or not, if this is true, then it is basic medical malpractice and you can't have people deciding the merit of her case based on whether they agree with her having so many kids.

But the reality is we really don't know what went down. We are only get "her" side of the story as the hospital, doctors and nurses can't comment due to pending litigation (which leads me to believe that the hospital is fighting her claim, if that is the case I'm sure they have documentation that supports their claim).

The burden of proof is on her. She has to prove that she did not sign something that said yes to sterilization. For all we know, she could have and now she pissed about it. That is why they say to read before you sign. For all we know the hospital could have screwed up and gave her the wrong consent form to sign, but she did sign it. If she didn't read the document before signing, I'm sorry she has no one to blame but herself.

[AGDee]

Not only pending litigation prevents them from talking, but so do HIPAA laws.

[Jill1228]

Originally Posted by als463

How is talking about her abusing the system not relevant to thread? Other people said the same thing. It might be about that. It may not have been right for them to perform this surgery/ operation without her consent, but maybe instead of crying that she wasn't treated properly, we should give these Doctors a pat on the back.

P.S. Psi U MC Vito, I heart you...

I freaking heart both of you! If she can't feed and take care of the kids she has now, she shouldn't be breeding

And as ASUADPi said, the burden of proof is on her

[als463]

Originally Posted by Jill1228

I freaking heart both of you! If she can't feed and take care of the kids she has now, she shouldn't be breeding

And as ASUADPi said, the burden of proof is on her

No...Jill, I freakin' heart YOU! Although it sucks that she may not have consented, she should not be able to breed anymore.

It is nice to find other people that have the same views as me. I also appreciate opposing views.

[AOII Angel]

I'd be interested to see what her OB-GYN's file looks like (IF she had pre-natal care.) Just because the hospital chart did not include her consent for tubal ligation does NOT mean that her physician's office chart did NOT include a copy of the document. At least in Louisiana, these forms come in triplicate so that there are copies for everyone's chart. If the physician really did sterilize her without consent, shame on him. You stopped one woman from having another child. This would save the tax payers a little money in the grand scheme of things while risking his medical license, the nurses' their licenses and the hospital its Joint Commission standing which could jeopardize its accreditation. It's just not ethically right, though it feels good to stop morons from populating the world without taking responsibility for their progeny. Trust me, we came across this situation on more than a daily basis at LSU since it is a charity hospital. Are you just going to sterilize them all?

[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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

But the reality is we really don't know what went down. We are only get "her" side of the story as the hospital, doctors and nurses can't comment due to pending litigation (which leads me to believe that the hospital is fighting her claim, if that is the case I'm sure they have documentation that supports their claim).

The burden of proof is on her. She has to prove that she did not sign something that said yes to sterilization. For all we know, she could have and now she pissed about it. That is why they say to read before you sign. For all we know the hospital could have screwed up and gave her the wrong consent form to sign, but she did sign it. If she didn't read the document before signing, I'm sorry she has no one to blame but herself.

No, we don't know what went down, but it isn't that uncommon to have doctors perform the wrong procedure on patients. You are implying that she may have done something herself to cause it to happen, but are you thinking that because you are judging her on having 9 kids or is that what you really think may have happened? If they cannot produce a consent form that she signed for the tubal ligation that fell within the guidelines for such procedures, then yes, they were wrong.

[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