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.
The good news though is that if you are a physician in Massachusetts, you can move here to Florida to avoid the higher malpractice costs that will inevitably result.
Can this be right?
I'll be very surprised if this suit isn't immediately thrown out. I don't think you can get married and then sue as a spouse for a tortious act that took place BEFORE you were married.
As I said to hubby yesterday, I'm not sure the advance of civilization has been a good thing. I read articles like this and I am convinced the world would be a better place if most people were still out tilling the ground for their sustanence.
Not all cancer is the same.
The article discusses that. You've got to remember, though, that this is Massachusetts we're talking about. I'd be surprised if they throw it out.
Yes sir, you can still sue for not being able to get any from your significant other.
How this will work with homosexual "marriage" is frightening to contemplate, but I bet the courts will find a solution lickety-split.
Nothing that happens with judges and lawyers surprises me anymore.
Did anyone on this planet besides brain dead liberal politicians think homo marriage was anything but a money grab to circumvent marriage requirements for insurance claims?
The worms are out of the can and there is no going back.
"Lickety split" is a lesbian divorce, right?
The bill for these awards, including the lawyers' take, is paid by all patients.
In an ideal world, it would be nice to compensate everyone for every misfortune. In the real world, we cannot afford to.
Furthermore, the threat of litigation has not altered the incidence of iatrogenic injury.
The cost of medical care will remain beyond the reach of everyone until this problem is resolved.
It seems to me that as it was Massachusetts that allowed for this silliness, that the State of Massachusetts should be the ones to foot the bill!!
THAT might encourage the voters to clean house in that State.
Hahahahah. The people of Mass. let their judicial system do this and now they will have to pay the price of competent people in medicine fleeing that state. The rest of America had better wake up fast. Having "compassion" for the gays "equal" rights is like having compassion for terrorists.
This is the great unreported fact of homosexual marraige. How much extra is this going to cost the average american?
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?
It is politically incorrect to report on the higher incidences of disease and violence among homosexuals - people are called a racist if they do it. So people will just wonder what happens to their health care premiums.
The Democrats don't care. This just brings them closer to their dream of forced mass health care from the government.
Red
Golly, isn't this going to be a hoot?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
By now, you all know that lesbian consort consists of practices A, B, C, D, E and F.
Because of her surgery, petitioner can no longer engage in practices B and C within the sacred shrine of lesbian matrimony. She claims the loss consort is worth one million dollars.
However, petitioner can STILL engage in practices A, D, E and especially practice F. So, at most, the petitioner is entitled do minimal damages.
We ask you to award the petitioner 69 cents.
Your Honor, we rest.
This is a little different as it is a "physical" problem not caused by the Doctors "X".
Not only that; while I certainly sympathize, you'd think that between the two of them, they'd have gone to another doctor. Not only that, the woman could have sued the doctor for negligence IF IT WAS SO and not use this ground at all. I don't think it's going anywhere.
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.