Same Sex Malpractice Case Dismissed for Lack of Standing

Jeana (DP)

Former Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
26,900
Reaction score
148
Website
Visit site
This is a heartbreaking decision . .



Appeals court: Same-sex partner can't sue hospital for malpractice

NEW YORK (AP) — A divided state appeals court ruled Thursday that a man cannot sue a Manhattan hospital for malpractice in the death of his longtime partner, saying it could not provide tacit approval of same-sex marriages.

The court overturned a judge's 2003 decision that John Langan, of Vermont, could sue St. Vincent's Hospital for alleged malpractice in the death of Neil C. Spicehandler.

The appeals court, in a 3-2 vote, decided that Langan had no standing to sue the hospital despite the couple's 2000 civil union in Vermont. Attorneys for Langan claimed the civil union gave him standing as a spouse to sue the hospital under New York law.

* * *

Adam Aronson, the attorney for Langan, criticized the decision and said he would discuss a possible appeal with his client.

"If this decision is allowed to stand, same-sex couples will be denied the very significant and important protections that all married heterosexual spouses can get," Aronson said. "And they will be denied those protections for no reason other than the fact they are gay."

* * *

Spicehandler, 41, died at St. Vincent's after he was struck by a car in Manhattan. In his lawsuit, Langan charged that errors in treatment led to Spicehandler's death from an embolism -- a blockage caused by a blood clot.

http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/1014/samesex_ap.html
 
Wow, what a can of worms! What do you think about this, Jeana, from a legal perspective?
 
I think they've got a pretty good chance of winning their appeal. At the very least it will go a long way towards showing people exactly what it is that has same sex couples fighting so hard to have their "unions" regognized as "legal marriages." Some people say its justg a piece of paper, why fight so hard to get it. They forget that the little piece of paper opens doors to them that heterosexual couples taken for granted.
 
Jeana (DP) said:
I think they've got a pretty good chance of winning their appeal. At the very least it will go a long way towards showing people exactly what it is that has same sex couples fighting so hard to have their "unions" regognized as "legal marriages." Some people say its justg a piece of paper, why fight so hard to get it. They forget that the little piece of paper opens doors to them that heterosexual couples taken for granted.
I agree. It's more than just making a political statement for alot of these couples. It's about being able to provide health insurance, name their partner on a life insurance policy, etc.
 
IdahoMom said:
I agree. It's more than just making a political statement for alot of these couples. It's about being able to provide health insurance, name their partner on a life insurance policy, etc.
Gay people deserve to be just as miserable as married people, and of course enjoy the few perks that comes with it too!:D

I hope they win the appeal
 
Jeana (DP) said:
I think they've got a pretty good chance of winning their appeal. At the very least it will go a long way towards showing people exactly what it is that has same sex couples fighting so hard to have their "unions" regognized as "legal marriages." Some people say its justg a piece of paper, why fight so hard to get it. They forget that the little piece of paper opens doors to them that heterosexual couples taken for granted.

Exactly. Great post.
 
jannuncutt said:
Why not? I really hope that they win.
I don't think the judicial system will approve it. I won't give an opinion about which side I want to win.
 
deandaniellws said:
I don't think the judicial system will approve it. I won't give an opinion about which side I want to win.


It was 3/2. That's pretty damn good odds.
 
I hope that this case will go forward. It is past time to give these couples the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.



JMHO
 
Jeana (DP) said:
It was 3/2. That's pretty damn good odds.
But not good enough to make it happen. I am sure we will all be keeping an eye on this case. :twocents: Sad story.
 
deandaniellws said:
But not good enough to make it happen. I am sure we will all be keeping an eye on this case. :twocents: Sad story.


Round one. :)
Hopefully, the justices on the next step have bigger balls. :)
 
Jeana (DP) said:
Round one. :)
Hopefully, the justices on the next step have bigger balls. :)
This will be a ground breaking case...no matter which way it falls. It is definitely a case to keep up with.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
817
Total visitors
885

Forum statistics

Threads
589,923
Messages
17,927,715
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top