
• Iowa judge says a sheriff denied the applications of a father and son for concealed weapons permits in retaliation for their political activism. "This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views." Dorr v. Weber
• 5th Circuit rules that a school district violated the religious freedom of a Native American boy by requiring him to wear his long hair in a bun on top of his head or in a braid tucked into his shirt. The boy "has a sincere religious belief in wearing his hair uncut and in plain view." A.A. v. Needville Ind. Sch. Dist.
• 11th Circuit denies a challenge to an ordinance restricting handouts of food to the homeless in Orlando parks. "[W]e are unpersuaded that the conduct of simply feeding people ... is expressive for First Amendment purposes." First Vagabonds Church v. City of Orlando
• Boston judge slashes a jury award in an illegal music downloading case from $675,000 to $67,500. "The award in this case ... lacks any rational foundation and smacks of arbitrariness." Sony v. Tenenbaum
• Iowa Supreme Court suspends a voyeuristic attorney indefinitely for peeping on women through windows. "[W]e cannot overlook the serious, egregious, and persistent nature of [Mark] Templeton’s misconduct and the effect it had on his victims." Disciplinary Board v. Templeton
• Pennsylvania judge strikes down the state's blasphemy law in a case brought by a film producer who wanted to name his company "I Choose Hell Productions." "'Choosing hell' may be an irreverent choice for a corporate name, but under the Constitution, this fact alone cannot be the basis for its suppression from the public debate." Kalman v. Cortes
• Cancer patient sues Wal-Mart for firing him after discovering that he uses medical marijuana for pain relief. "[N]o corporation doing business in Michigan should be permitted to flout state laws protecting patients who use medical marihuana in accordance with state law." Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores
• 11th Circuit rules that the operator of an Internet porn dorm was engaged in illegally operating a business in a residential zone. "Business objectives are the sole reason individuals are paid to live and engage in sexual activities at the 27th Street residence." Flava Works v. City of Miami

|
|
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
|
|
-
Sex Harassment Claims Hit Actor Affleck, 'Bones' Star
A producer of a film about actor Joaquin Phoenix, an extra on the set of the TV show “Bones,” an assistant property master, and a makeup artist are among the plaintiffs in a recent epidemic of lurid Hollywood lawsuits.
Read more...
-
Jury Goes 'Wild' in Woman's Privacy Case Over Video
A Missouri jury has gone wild in a case of involuntary nudity, finding that a woman consented to appearing topless in a “Girls Gone Wild” video by playing to the camera before another person pulled her top down.
Read more...
-
Actress Facing $750K Award to Therapist
Soap opera star Hunter Tylo may have to pay more than $750,000 in damages and attorney fees to a psychotherapist whom she sued more than four years ago for negligent treatment of her children, On Point has learned.
Read more...
-
Reporter Sues Hotels Over Peephole Videos
In an unusual premises liability case, ESPN reporter Erin Andrews has sued the operators of three hotels for allowing a stalker to surreptitiously videotape her naked through peepholes in the doors to her rooms.
Read more...
-
Students Challenge Rubber Fetus Ban
The suspensions of seven pro-life students at two Roswell, N.M., high schools for distributing rubber fetuses have given birth to a lawsuit that takes the First Amendment protections for student speech into uncharted territory.
Read more...
-
Distress Claim Barred in Hotel 'Ménâge à Trois' Case
A former employee of a luxury Miami Beach hotel who says her billionaire boss invited her to join him in a “ménâge à trois” cannot sue him for infliction of emotional distress, a judge has ruled, finding his alleged behavior, while “obnoxious,” was not “objectively outrageous.”
Read more...
-
Chuck E. Cheese Settles Molesting Mascot Suit
A Missouri woman who claimed a Chuck E. Cheese mascot groped her breast has settled her lawsuit against the operator of the restaurant chain, On Point has learned.
Read more...
|
Stovell v. James Subject: LeBron's paternity Document: Complaint
U.S. v. Arizona Subject: Illegal immigration Document: Complaint
Rosenberg v. Google Subject: Negligent navigation Document: Complaint
Smith v. Hooters Subject: Weight discrimination Document: Complaint
City of Ontario v. Quon Subject: Text-message privacy Document: Opinion
more
|
|
Rosenberg v. Musical Arts Assn. Court: Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Common Pleas Subject: Defamation, age bias
Mecozzi v. City of Los Angeles Court: L.A. Superior Subject: Police brutality Verdict: $1.7 million
more
|
|
Jose Padilla v. John Yoo Date: 6/14/10 Court: 9th Circuit Hearing: Oral arguments in human rights case.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger Date: 6/16/10 Court: USDC, N. Calif. Hearing: Closing arguments in trial of challenge to gay marriage ban.
more
|
|
|