Girl, 15, sues school nurse over prenancy test

KXAS TV ^ | June 17, 2005

[tuffydoodle]

Girl, 15, Sues School Nurse Over Pregnancy Test Lawsuit Claims San Marcos Student's Privacy, Rights Violated

AUSTIN, Texas -- A 15-year-old San Marcos girl and her father have filed a federal lawsuit against her school nurse, who allegedly forced the girl to take a pregnancy test.

The lawsuit claims that nurse Dyanna Eastwood called the girl to her office and told her that a student at another school claimed he impregnated her. Eastwood insisted the girl take the test, according to the lawsuit.

The girl said she did not have sex with the boy and denied that she was pregnant. The girl's lawyer also said she was not pregnant. The suit, which was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Austin, claims the girl's privacy and constitutional rights were violated during the January event.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, claims Eastwood violated the girl's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

"I remember the incident," Eastwood said. "Is that how it went down? No, of course not."

She declined to comment further, saying she wanted to seek legal advice.

The lawsuit also names the San Marcos Consolidated Independent School District as a defendant. The district's general counsel, Juan Cruz, declined to comment, saying officials have not been served with the lawsuit.

"This whole thing is intrinsically wrong," said John Hindera, the family's Austin lawyer. "She's a 15-year-old girl that's suddenly being confronted with having sex and being pregnant."

Hindera said that Eastwood did not threaten any consequences if the girl declined to take the test, but that the girl felt she had no choice because the nurse is an authority figure.

When the girl's father asked Principal Chad Kelly about the pregnancy test, the father was handed a piece of paper citing a section of the Texas Family Code stating that a child may consent to medical treatment by a licensed physician if the child "is unmarried and pregnant and consents to hospital, medical or surgical treatment, other than abortion, related to the pregnancy."

Hindera said even if the girl agreed to take the test, that consent isn't valid under Texas law because of her age.

[festus]

Is there anything else you feel that you need to know?

Yes. Where were you on the night of September 32nd ? ;-)

Cheers.

[Dark Wing]

ping

[bubbleb]

As an RN I realize that the technicality is that the girl must be proved to be pregnant in order to consent to health-care without the consent of her parents. Since the school nurse did not have a medical confirmation by test results that she was, indeed, dealing with an emancipated child, she was under a legal obligation to call the parents before any medical testing was to be done. What the school nurse did was illegal, as well as immoral, disrespectful, and demeaning.

[Born Conservative]

Agreed. She clearly over-stepped any authority the school district provided her, though.

In all liklihood, she also violated the Nurse Practice Act of her state, and performed a diagnostic study without an order-grounds for practicing medicine without a license, which could cause her to get her nursing license suspended or revoked.

[atomopawn]

Am I the first person to notice that the TFC applies only to PREGNANT students? The test was Negative, so it does NOT apply in this case. Therefore the school exceeded its authority.

[RGSpincich]

Pretrial conference today.


Docket as of November 19, 2005 0:22 am Web PACER (v2.4)

---

U.S. District Court

Western District of Texas (Austin)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 05-CV-455

Villanueva, et al v. San Marcos Consolida, et al

Filed: 06/15/05
Assigned to: Judge Lee Yeakel
Jury demand: Plaintiff
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 440
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights

---

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX John J. Hindera
plaintiff 512/899-3618
[COR LD NTC]
The Hindera Law Firm
4425 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 3, Suite 505
Austin, TX 78735
(512) 899-3631

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AS NEXT, John J. Hindera
Friend of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, A (See above)
Minor [COR LD NTC]
plaintiff

v.

SAN MARCOS CONSOLIDATED Cobby Caputo
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 512/320-5638
defendant [COR LD NTC]
Bickerstaff, Heath, et al
816 Congress Ave.
Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 472-8021

DYANNA EASTWOOD, Individually Bridget Robinson
and in Her Official Capacity 512/467-9318
defendant [COR LD NTC]
Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze
& Aldridge, P.C.
P.O. Box 2156
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 454-6864



---

DOCKET PROCEEDINGS

---

DATE # DOCKET ENTRY



6/15/05 -- Case assigned to Judge Lee Yeakel (af)
[Entry date 06/16/05] [Edit date 06/27/05]

6/15/05 1 Complaint filed. Filing Fee: $ 250.00 Receipt # 381049
(af) [Entry date 06/16/05]

6/15/05 2 Demand for jury trial by XXXXXXXXXXXXX,
As Next (af) [Entry date 06/16/05]

6/15/05 -- Summons issued for San Marcos Consolida, Dyanna Eastwood (af)
[Entry date 06/16/05]

6/16/05 -- Court file prepared and forwarded to Judge Yeakel (af)
[Entry date 06/16/05]

6/23/05 3 Return of service executed as to Dyanna Eastwood on
6/18/05 (mc2) [Entry date 06/24/05]

6/23/05 4 Return of service executed as to San Marcos Consolida on
6/20/05 (mc2) [Entry date 06/24/05]

7/1/05 5 Answer by Dyanna Eastwood (dm) [Entry date 07/05/05]

7/11/05 6 Original Answer by San Marcos Consolida (dm)
[Entry date 07/11/05]

7/11/05 7 Motion by San Marcos Consolida for immediate dismissal of
tort claims alleged against Dyanna Eastwood (dm)
[Entry date 07/11/05]

10/5/05 -- Letter/Correspondence by Atty Robinson regarding vacation
schedule ... copy fwd to Court. (td) [Entry date 10/06/05]

10/6/05 8 Order set pretrial conference for 3:30 11/22/05 signed
by Judge Lee Yeakel (td) [Entry date 10/06/05]

11/17/05 9 Notice of filing of Initial Disclosures by XXXXXXXXXXXXX (dm) [Entry date 11/18/05]

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the post. I see things are proceding. It will be interesting to see who can prove what, if anything. At least the parents are pushing back.

Look, if the kid was the gulity party (solely responsible), I hope it comes out. I don't want to see a school employee convicted unfairly any more than you do.

D1

[RGSpincich]

Hi, me again. Looks like there was a lot of noise about nothing. I'll provide the Google version so you don't have to register.

Teen's pregnancy test suit tossed

[SoftballMominVA]

Is it possible, just possible the girl is lieing and the nurse has a completely different side? What happened to "innocent before proven guilty?"

The nurse said she remembered the situation, but it didn't happen the way the girl described it. Before I jump on the bandwagon of hate, I'd like to know the facts of both sides. But that's me.....

[RGSpincich]

Skip alllllll the way to the end. ;~)

[MinuteGal]

You may be closer to the truth than you think.

Leni

[MamaB]

Just maybe he was trying to impress his so called friends. It has been known to happen.