• Owners of Who Dat?, Inc. sue the NFL and the New Orleans Saints for trademark infringement, seeking to protect the mark that "has become one of the most recognizable in all of America and quickly became well-known around the world."
Who Dat?, Inc. v. NFL Properties
• Army bomb disposal expert sues the makers of "The Hurt Locker" for plagiarizing his life story. The film is "nothing more than the exploitation of a real life honorable, courageous, and long serving member of our country’s armed forces, by greedy multi-billion dollar 'entertainment' corporations."
Sarver v. The Hurt Locker
• Former patient sues the Cincinnati hospital where he was sexually assaulted by a transgender nurse. The nurse's "employment while masquerading as a member of the female gender in a hospital environment involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others."
Evans v. University of Cincinnati
• Federal judge enjoins the City of Phoenix from enforcing a noise ordinance against "sound generated in the course of religious expression," finding the right of churches to ring bells outweighs "the City's interest in preserving the peace and tranquility of its neighborhoods."
St. Mark Roman Catholic Parish v. City of Phoenix
• 5th Circuit says a Texas city's junked vehicle ordinance applies to a cactus planter made out of wrecked Oldsmobile 88. "Irrespective of the intentions of its creators ... the car-planter is a utilitarian device, an advertisement, and ultimately a 'junked vehicle.'"
Kleinman v. City of San Marcos
• Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols notifies a federal judge that he has gone on hunger strike, saying he is "prepared to die if necessary because he is done allowing his body to be defiled by [ ] refined and dead foods."
Nichols v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
• Texas judge finds the makers of a film about Rin Tin Tin did not infringe on the trademarks of a breeder of German Shepherds. "Defendants['] title 'Finding Rin Tin Tin: The Adventure Continues" is a fair use of the term 'Rin Tin Tin.'"
Rin Tin Tin, Inc. v. First Look Studios
• Illinois appeals court says the contact sports exception to negligence liability does not apply to the case of an athletic trainer who was struck in the eye by a hockey puck while refilling water bottles. Michael Weisberg "suffered injuries as a result of alleged conduct that was not inherent to the sport of hockey."
Weisberg v. Chicago Steel
 
|
|
Nurse's Beliefs at Issue in Forced IUD Removal Case |
 |
 No “conscience clause” for health care providers who oppose abortion appears to protect a physician's assistant at a New Mexico clinic from liability for intentionally removing a patient's IUD without her permission.
Sylvia Olona allegedly told the patient, “I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion” and recommended that she use a “non-abortion” form of contraception such as a depo provera shot or the pill.
In a federal suit filed earlier this month, the patient, Ashley Van Patten, alleges Olona committed a civil battery upon her and violated her “constitutional right to choose her form of contraception.” The complaint also names the Presbyterian Medical Services (PMS) Family Health Center in Rio Rancho, N.M., as a defendant.
A New Mexico law allows a health care provider to “decline to comply with an individual instruction or health-care decision for reasons of conscience.” A Bush Administration “conscience rule” which allows medical personnel to refuse to perform procedures they find morally objectionable took effect Jan. 19, Bush's last day in office.
But if Van Patten's allegations are true, Olona went far beyond the scope of both the state and federal rules by imposing her beliefs on a patient.
“Defendant Olona stated, 'Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it’s not true, they accidentally come out when I tug,'” the complaint says.
Van Patten visited the PMS clinic on Jan, 17, 2007 for an adjustment of her IUD. According to the suit, she felt a “sharp pain in her uterus” as Olona performed the procedure and Olona then announced, “Uh oh, I accidentally pulled out your IUD.”
“[H]aving the IUD come out was a good thing,” she allegedly assured Van Patten, going on to express her dislike of the device.
“I don’t know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them,” Olona said. “What the IUD does is take the fertilized egg and pushes it out of the uterus.” Given the choice of “non-abortion” contraception, Van Patten opted for a depo shot.
The suit disputes that the removal of the IUD was accidental -- “The pain Ms. Van Patten felt when Defendant Olona was doing the procedure was consistent with the pain experienced when an[ ] IUD is intentionally removed.” It also accuses PMS of negligently supervising Olona “when it had knowledge of her practice of removing IUDs from patients without their permission.”
The right to choice of contraception derives from such U.S. Supreme Court decisions as Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. Conscience clauses have arisen largely in response to Roe, but protect health care providers who object to performing a procedure –- not those who, as in Olona's case, perform a procedure and allegedly violate a patient's rights while doing so.
Olona is described in the suit as a certified nurse practitioner but the New Mexico Medical Board lists her as a physician's assistant.
|
UPDATE
Van Patten dropped the choice of contraception claim involving Olona's alleged anti-abortion views from an amended complaint filed May 18, 2009.
|
By Matthew Heller
1/23/09 
|
|
-
Perfume Allergy Case Settles for $100,000
A Detroit city planner with an allergy to perfume is savoring the sweet smell of legal success after the city agreed to pay her $100,000 and be more sensitive to the chemically sensitive.
Read more...
-
Teen's Suit Puts Mug-Shot Publisher Against the Wall
A new publication in Lincoln, Neb., milks mug shots for humor. But a teenager whose arrest photo appeared in Cuffed doesn't see the funny side of it and has sued the publisher for misappropriating his image.
Read more...
-
BA Settles 'Reckless' Baggage Handling Suit
Limiting its liability to a group of only 13 airline passengers, British Airways (NYSE: BAY) has settled a first-of-its kind lawsuit that accused the airline of being “inexcusably reckless” in its handling of passengers' baggage.
Read more...
-
Judge Says "Gay" Still Defamatory in Texas
What one court has called “a veritable sea change in social attitudes about homosexuality” has evidently not reached Texas where a judge ruled that an airport security guard can sue a radio show host for calling him “gay” on the air.
Read more...
-
Mom Says Hospital Gave Her Wrong
Baby to Nurse
Because of a hospital's error, Jennifer Spiegel became an involuntary wet nurse to another woman's newborn son. Now she is suing the hospital for its malpractice in providing her with the wrong baby to breastfeed.
Read more...
-
Case Over MySpace Page Chills Student Speech
Several recent court rulings have been protective of off-campus student speech -– with the exception of a very shaky decision that a dissenting judge said “vests school officials with dangerously overbroad censorship discretion.”
Read more...
-
Motorist Who Flipped off Cop Gets $50K From City
The citation of a motorist for displaying his middle finger to a police officer -– what a judge described as a “somewhat innocuous” gesture -- turned out to be quite expensive for the City of Pittsburgh as it agreed to pay $50,000 to the bird-flipper.
Read more...
|
Newdow v. Rio Lindo Union Sch. Dist.
Subject: Pledge of allegiance
Document: Opinion
Vance v. Rumsfeld
Subject: Detainee abuse
Document: Opinion
Stern v. Sony Corp.
Subject: Disabled gamers
Document: Opinion
Churchill v. Univ. of Colorado
Subject: Academic freedom
Document: ACLU amicus brief
KBR/Halliburton v. Jones
Subject: Sexual assault
Document: Petition for review
more
|
|
Spears v. Allergan, Inc.
Court: Orange County (Calif.) Superior
Subject: Botox death
Verdict: Defense
Patterson v. Hudson Area Schools
Court: USDC, E. Mich.
Subject: Student harassment
more
|
|
McClain v. Pfizer, Inc.
Date: 3/2/10
Court: USDC, Conn.
Hearing: Jury trial in case over unsafe lab conditions.
Sherman v. McDonald's Corp.
Date: 3/23/10
Court: Washington County (Ark.) Circuit
Hearing: Jury trial in case over nude photos.
more
|
|
|
