Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newly Married Lesbian Couple Files Suit
AP ^ | May 22, 2004 | AP

Posted on 05/22/2004 8:06:03 AM PDT by Brilliant

BOSTON - One day after getting married, a lesbian couple filed a medical malpractice lawsuit asking that one of the women receive damages because doctors failed to detect breast cancer in her spouse.

The lawsuit filed Friday claims "loss of consortium" for Michelle Charron, 44, because of the advanced breast cancer in new wife Cindy Kalish, 39.

Loss of consortium is a legal claim long available to spouses, but only newly available to gay and lesbian couples since the state began allowing same-sex marriage Monday. The lawsuit provides a glimpse into the kinds of legal battles involving gay and lesbian unions that Massachusetts courts can now expect.

"I think there will be tons and tons of incidental issues, and this apparently is the first one," said Boston lawyer Steven Schreckinger.

Charron and Kalish were seventh in line on Monday to apply for a wedding license, and were married Thursday. The lawsuit contends that two doctors affiliated with Fallon Clinic failed to order a biopsy for a lump in Charron's breast, which she first brought to their attention in December 2002.

By the time the biopsy was performed nearly eight months later, Charron's lump had grown and she was diagnosed with advanced cancer that had spread to her liver and sternum. Doctors have given her 10 years to live.

A spokeswoman for Fallon Clinic declined to comment on the case.

The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that unmarried partners cannot bring lack of consortium claims, said David White-Lief, a specialist in personal injury law and a former chairman of the Massachusetts Bar Association's civil litigation section.

Schreckinger said the lawsuit's timing could be challenged, because the alleged negligence was before the couple was married. But the couple's lawyer, Ann Maguire, said the court will view the case differently because marriage was not an option before Monday. The couple had a commitment ceremony in 1992.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; ambulancechasing; gay; homosexualagenda; judicialtyranny; lawsuit; lawsuitabuse; loserpays; malpractice; marriage; massachusetts; prisoners; samesexmarriage; sodomites; tortreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
To: Brilliant

Sounds like she had an abortion earlier in life.


21 posted on 05/22/2004 9:02:01 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
"They've only just begun......"

FMCDH

22 posted on 05/22/2004 9:09:38 AM PDT by nothingnew (KERRY: "If at first you don't deceive, lie, lie again!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I still care

"How does the average employer deal with a whole demographic of new people added to the health care rolls, many of which are high risk for disease and physical violence?"

Individual medical insurance at significantly higher rates. No more family plans - if you have a 2 year old and a 4 year old and a spouse, that's 4 plans for you buddy. And since they won't be able to take the risky homosexual lifestyle you so accurately describe into account, we'll all pay more.

I am not enamored of the insurance industry, but this is unreasonable risk even for them


23 posted on 05/22/2004 9:14:56 AM PDT by Felis_irritable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

You really want more yankee liberals in Florida? They bring their culture with them and try to politically impose it on the rest of us, even if it is that culture that they are running away from.


24 posted on 05/22/2004 9:18:14 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

How has this gotten so out of hand so quick?


In NY we have a U.S. senate race and the republican challanger supports a national civil union bill


25 posted on 05/22/2004 9:21:29 AM PDT by SirTaurus (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lepton

bookmark bump


26 posted on 05/22/2004 9:24:52 AM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lepton

Now we know why they want to get married.


27 posted on 05/22/2004 9:27:45 AM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

And just wait until the fags with AIDS start "marrying" "partners" with medical insurance. If you think your medical insurance premiums are high now, just wait a few months!


28 posted on 05/22/2004 9:43:18 AM PDT by MIchaelTArchangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MIchaelTArchangel
Every aids person needs to find some one with a job that confers health insurance on same sex marriages. That will finish them off. Massachusetts deserves God's wrath.
29 posted on 05/22/2004 9:52:11 AM PDT by tessalu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MIchaelTArchangel
Every aids person needs to find some one with a job that confers health insurance on same sex marriages. That will finish them off. Massachusetts deserves God's wrath.
30 posted on 05/22/2004 9:52:58 AM PDT by tessalu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MIchaelTArchangel
And just wait until the fags with AIDS start "marrying" "partners" with medical insurance. If you think your medical insurance premiums are high now, just wait a few months!

This is the decay of our society as we know it. Subsidizing gays, lesbians, AIDS and the homosexual lifestyle. Now it is on our dime.

31 posted on 05/22/2004 9:57:22 AM PDT by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The longer I live, the more I've come to see that the game of living is all about the redistribution of wealth: people planning, jockeying, maneuvering to position themselves so they can take money legally or illegally from the system and people within that system.


32 posted on 05/22/2004 9:59:02 AM PDT by Ciexyz ("FR, best viewed with a budgie on hand"P)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The trial lawyers are happy, very happy.

This case opens up all kind of possibilities. Just like redefining the definition of marriage, this case could redefine the definition of conjugal visit. Or loss of consortium. And, if they have multiple sex partners, and get divorced, it could re-define the definition of adultery.

As Fritz Hollings would say, "there's a lot of redefining goin' on out there."

5.56mm

33 posted on 05/22/2004 9:59:02 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax Government

I think 69 cents is reasonable since she probably was not worth a million dollars in the practices of B and C.


34 posted on 05/22/2004 10:04:30 AM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
Health care will remain unaffordable until lawyers, malpractice litigation, and unlimited plaintiff's awards are eliminated from the system.

The bill for these awards, including the lawyers' take, is paid by all patients.

The solution is to have the costs of malpractice paid for solely by patients who want such legal protection. My wife and I should be able to sign a firm notarized promise to forgive our doctors for any mistakes they make with ourselves or our children. Malpractice insurers should be forced to base rates on the proportion of a doctor's patients who have signed such waivers, and health insurers should be required to charge separate rates for waiver and non-waiver patients.

35 posted on 05/22/2004 10:08:08 AM PDT by Steve Eisenberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: surelyclintonsbaddream

Disgusted ping.


36 posted on 05/22/2004 10:36:31 AM PDT by scott7278 ("FR will NOT be used to help replace Bush with a Democrat." -- Jim Robinson, 2/01/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; Travis McGee; ArGee; lentulusgracchus; Bryan; MeekOneGOP
Ping


What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda


Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)


Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"

37 posted on 05/22/2004 11:00:06 AM PDT by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping - Well, Suprise, Surprise, Surprise!!! Who would've thunk it! Golly Gee, this couldn't be the beginning of the Tsumani, could it? Nope, just an isolated incident.

Fer shure there won't be any more wild and wacky lawsuits. I'm sure these two honorable ladies couln't possibly have planned this in advance.

Watch the destruction of civilization happen right before your eyes, folks. Step right up, in living 3-D and full spectrum color.

Want to put a halt to this cr*p?

I do.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.


38 posted on 05/22/2004 11:07:56 AM PDT by little jeremiah ("Gay Marriage" - a Weapon of Mass. Destruction!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1

I've posted these quotes before, but they are very relevant on this thread. Not only do homosexual activists (and how many aren't activists?) want same sex "marriage" for money, they have more insidious reasons, as they admit themselves: (If anyone has any doubts or curiosity about exactly WHY homosexuals want same sex marriage, it's worth the read.)

From LA Times of March 12 2004...
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.

One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to "push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society."

Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, "Virtually Normal", says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]


39 posted on 05/22/2004 11:15:10 AM PDT by little jeremiah ("Gay Marriage" - a Weapon of Mass. Destruction!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; Brilliant; *Homosexual Agenda
The lawsuit filed Friday claims "loss of consortium" for Michelle Charron, 44, because of the advanced breast cancer in new wife Cindy Kalish, 39.

Loss of consortium is a legal claim long available to spouses, but only newly available to gay and lesbian couples since the state began allowing same-sex marriage Monday. The lawsuit provides a glimpse into the kinds of legal battles involving gay and lesbian unions that Massachusetts courts can now expect.

I'm still not exactly sure what it means, not really.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer either .....

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/consortium.html

con·sor·ti·um [ kən sáwrtee əm, kən sáwrshəm, kən sáwrshee əm ] (plural con·sor·ti·a [ kən sáwrtee ə, kən sáwrshə, kən sáwrshee ə ])
noun 
1. combination of organizations for common purpose: an association or grouping of institutions, businesses, or financial organizations, usually set up for a common purpose that would be beyond the capabilities of a single member of the group

2. right to marital company and affection: the right of husbands or wives to the company, affection, and help of their spouses ( archaic )

[Early 19th century. From Latin, “fellowship,” from consors  “fellow” (see consort).]

con·sor·ti·al adjective

40 posted on 05/22/2004 11:18:40 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is ONLY ONE good Democrat: one that has just been voted OUT of POWER ! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson