Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
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.
Usually, it means their physical condition prevents them from enjoying sex, but it can include any damage to the marriage.
We've got em anyway. I'll take the doctors. We need more doctors.
If offered the option of (1) affordable health care but no option to sue or (2) the present system, I'd pick option #1 in a second.
Most people would.
The lawyers know this. It's their racket. By the time they get through scaring the wits out of people, they're ready to submit to anything. Lawyers are trained and skilled in the art of persuasion.
The same options should be available not just where health care is concerned but across the board. Such waivers should be legal and binding.
I could not agree with you more. That's exactly what we need.
For some reason, large numbers of people love living under the dark cloud of litigation constantly. It's like the clouds of the Inquisition in El Greco's View of Toledo. They complain about it. They live in fear of it. But, when the lawyers get cranked up with their scare tactics, wisdom vanishes--which, of course, is the object of the tactics.
You really see this in California. Mention "litigation" or "law suit" and watch the person's pupils. They're terrified but they have no idea how to get past this Gordian Knot.
But anywhere in the United States, whether you're talking about the workplace, a boat trip, whatever--mention "law suit" and people show signs of fear. They should.
Let the games begin....
Obviously, the woman affected could have filed a medical malpractice suit at any time just on the basis of the misdiagnosis. (I don't know why she didn't or even if she didn't, unless she was waiting for the SJC decision.) But a live-in significant other has no standing.
Law of Unintended Consequences. Only the beginning.
I doubt that would go through; sounds to close to signing away rights. There was some talk a while ago, though, regarding car insurance -- a proposal that drivers who agreed in advance to settle for actual economic damages could get lower rates. Your idea might be more workable along those lines -- agree to seek only actual economic compensation, i.e., lost wages, costs of corrective treatment, and maybe funeral expenses, and agree to forgo pain and suffering awards, punitive damages or double or treble damages where applicable.
The whole "gay marriage" sham is all about money. The main thing is getting recognition of the "marriage," so that insurance companies will have to pay for AIDS care for so-called "spouces."
Promiscuity walks hand-in-hand with homosexuality. So, most "gay marriages" last about as long as a snow ball in August.
A highly dubious legal assertion, but I am sure many judges will lap it up, like well aged Scotch.
The Torie Amendment to "solve" this looks better and better, doesn't it John? :)
Thank you ! I was wondering if that's what it meant.I appreciate your reply confirming. :^)
Bookmarking...
Well said - post #10.
Based on experience of some of my women relations, no. Someone must have misunderstood something. If the liver's involved, it's more like 10 months.
The root is sors, sortis (archaic form would have been *sorts in the nominative), "die", pl. sortes = "dice".
Literally, someone you roll the dice with. In the case of this lesbian couple, one of them came up snakeyes.
<< ..... I bet the courts will find a solution lickety-split. >>
Gross.
[But the addressee says it all ....
.... and I love it]
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
Wait till the lawsuits demanding child adoption rights begin.
I must agree.
Don't forget, we are talking about Massachusetts.
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.