A New Mexico woman has settled her lawsuit against a physician's assistant at a health clinic who allegedly expressed anti-abortion views while removing her IUD without her permission, On Point has learned.

Ashley Van Patten's original complaint included an unusual claim for violation of the due process right to choice of contraception arising from a visit to the Rio Rancho Family Health Center in Rio Rancho, N.M., for an adjustment of her IUD. She also alleged civil battery, describing the actions of physician's assistant Sylvia Olona as “malicious.”

After Olona took the IUD out, the suit said, she told Van Patten, “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.

But what appeared to be a blatant intrusion of religious belief into medical treatment was scrubbed from an amended complaint filed last week, leaving Van Patten to allege only a run-of-the-mill malpractice claim for negligent removal of the IUD. Olona's name is also omitted and the only defendant is the federal government, which funds the Rio Rancho clinic.

Van Patten attorney Ryan J. Villa of Albuquerque explains that he amended the complaint "pursuant to a settlement agreement reached by the parties. The United States wanted Ms. Van Patten to file this complaint as part of the settlement agreement." Settlement documents have yet to be filed with the court.

In an answer to an earlier version of the suit, the U.S. generally denied the allegations, admitting only that “Ms. Olona examined Ms. Van Patten for an 'IUD check.'” The removal of an IUD during an adjustment is a “known risk inherent in the treatment,” the defense also said.

A New Mexico law says a health care provider may “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 Olona allegedly went far beyond the scope of both the state and federal rules by imposing her beliefs on Van Patten. The original complaint also said she had a “practice of removing IUDs from patients without their permission.”

While treating Van Patten, “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 suit said.

Van Patten also no longer alleges a civil battery or any “malicious” conduct on Olona's part. The clinic “failed to use ordinary and reasonable care in the care and treatment of Plaintiff,” the amended complaint said.

By Matthew Heller
5/24/09