DC - Justina gets standing ovation from Congress

annahanna

New Member
Joined
May 13, 2014
Messages
301
Reaction score
0
The Pelletiers have filed another motion to amend their complaint.
1) filed suit on 2/11/16
2) filed amended complaint and jury demand - 2/16/16
3) filed motion to amend complaint w/o opposition.
 

sweetmom

Member
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Thanks for keeping us up to date on the lawsuit. Can you provide a link to the court website that tracks new motions and petitions?

I came upon a very valuable website yesterday, harpocratesspeaks.com, which offers a very detailed and even-handed account (though it does not hesitate to call out the Pelletiers for misleading statements and bad behavior, such as their attempts to game the bankruptcy procedure, which may be illegal, and the problems with their "charitable" fundraising).
It offers several long posts that, IMO, give the most concise and understandable explanation of this whole sorry mess from its beginning to the present. And its proprietor answers commenters, especially if they post dubious info. I highly recommend it.

Harpocrates, it turns out, was the Greek god of silence, so the site name is a bit ironic. Here is what the site says about the guy who runs it:
Todd W. initially created Harpocrates Speaks to provide a place for people to leave comments that have been censored at the Age of Autism blog. Since then, he has revamped the site to cover a range of topics: censorship, children's health, ethics, medicine, science and skepticism. Todd has studied the regulation of medical products (drugs, devices and biologics) and has volunteered on an institutional review board, providing ethical review of human subjects research.
 

sweetmom

Member
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Thanks for the lawsuit link.
Yes, Harpocrates really has a good handle on all the twists and turns of this maddening case. I hope he will continue to post about it.
 

annahanna

New Member
Joined
May 13, 2014
Messages
301
Reaction score
0
The newest motion to amend the complaint, along with the jury demand, was approved on 3/15. Childrens Hospital Integrated Care Organization LLC D/B/A Boston Childrens Hospital has been added as a defendant. ?? Seriously? It doesn't sound like their attorney was particularly well prepared when the suit was filed. I would have expected that the hospital would have been one of the primary defendants - not an after thought.
 

sweetmom

Member
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
The newest motion to amend the complaint, along with the jury demand, was approved on 3/15. Childrens Hospital Integrated Care Organization LLC D/B/A Boston Childrens Hospital has been added as a defendant. ?? Seriously? It doesn't sound like their attorney was particularly well prepared when the suit was filed. I would have expected that the hospital would have been one of the primary defendants - not an after thought.

Do we know for sure that this case will be heard? Is it possible that it could be dismissed before it ever gets to that point? I really hope not, because it may be the only way BCH will ever get to tell its side of the story. And the Pelletiers will be under oath and subject to perjury charges if they are caught lying, right?
 

annahanna

New Member
Joined
May 13, 2014
Messages
301
Reaction score
0
Do we know for sure that this case will be heard? Is it possible that it could be dismissed before it ever gets to that point? I really hope not, because it may be the only way BCH will ever get to tell its side of the story. And the Pelletiers will be under oath and subject to perjury charges if they are caught lying, right?

I think it is too early to guess if this case will ever go to trial. Most malpractice suits do not - most are withdrawn or dismissed. A smaller number settle out of court - and out of the public eye. Knowing what I do about BCH and their feelings about this case, I don't believe that BCH will settle. We were in and out of that hospital several times during the Pelletier circus and the level of disruption and difficulty the family caused other patients was enormous.
 

annahanna

New Member
Joined
May 13, 2014
Messages
301
Reaction score
0
And here is another example of the awful terrible no-good doctors at BCH, who have pioneered a new treatment for torn ACLs in the knee.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...rs/BJISuh60AYKYTKWPwaYFWP/story.html#comments

I guess the Pelletiers and their frothing followers would still want to shut the place down....and then no one could benefit from this innovative technique. Because BCH is so evil.

Sigh.

I don't think the pelletiers care who they hurt in this process. They want to be vindicated. And this is just my opinion, but I think they really want $$$
 

sweetmom

Member
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
I don't think the pelletiers care who they hurt in this process. They want to be vindicated. And this is just my opinion, but I think they really want $$$

IMO, you got that right. They exhibit a virulent narcissism AND what I can only call greed.
Poor Justina. It is so sad to see a vulnerable child exploited this way. I don't feel sorry for their gullible followers: they are adults and have chosen to be duped. But Justina is too young and apparently too mentally damaged to make any kind of rational decision on her own behalf.
 

annahanna

New Member
Joined
May 13, 2014
Messages
301
Reaction score
0
It appears that Boston's Children's plans to vigorously defend themselves and their doctors in this suit. They had until 6/10/16 to answer the complaint. The hospital, along with Doctors Peters, Ryan, and Bujoreanu answered the amended complaint on 4/6/16. They are all being represented by the law firm of Adler, Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman & Guekguezian LLP - a high powered, very well regarded law firm. Attorney Cohen specializes in defense of medical malpractice and has consistently been named a top attorney on numerous lists. They have requested Medical Malpractice Tribunals for each of the doctors.

Dr Alice Newton has not yet answered the complaint and does not yet have an attorney of record. Although she used to split her time working at both Boston's Children's and Mass General, she is now exclusively working at Mass General.

I also saw that the original defendant "Childrens Hospital Integrated Care Organization LLC Doing Business as Boston Childrens Hospital" is now listed as inactive. The Pelletiers did amend their original complaint (amended 2/16, allowed 3/15) to add Children's Hospital Corp d/b/a Children's Hospital Boston to the suit. I am not particularly impressed by her attorneys failure to identify the correct hospital incorporation name prior to filing suit. A quick search on GuideStar would have told them the correct incorporation details. Although the Pelletier attorneys are not rookies, this seems like a rookie mistake. We will see how they fare against BCH's legal team.

The Pelletiers have also requested a second amendment to the complaint as of 4/11/16.
 

sweetmom

Member
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Thanks again for these invaluable updates.
I agree that citing the wrong name for Children's Hospital in the original complaint suggests the law firm really bobbled it. IMO, what could be more important than getting the name of the defendants right?
Perhaps they have assigned the case to a beginner at the firm, which would suggest they don't consider it a high priority case.
 

sweetmom

Member
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
This is slightly off-topic, but definitely related. Longtime posters on this thread will recall that along with Rev. Patrick Mahoney, Matt Staver of the Liberty Counsel law firm was involved with supporting the Pelletiers. Here is a story from Salon.com that links him to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to sign off on same-sex marriage licenses. The story explains how such firms are involved with promoting discriminatory laws in many states and how they set up phony non-profits to suck up money. I can't help but wonder if that is the origin of the save Justina "charity." Here's the link:

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/14/kim...natory_anti_lgbt_bills_in_20_states/#comments
 

i.b.nora

I am polka dot
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
8,887
Reaction score
382
Website
Visit site
Wasn't Justina left home alone with her Mother on the weekend of September 20th when her Father and sister Jennifer went to an anti transgender bathroom fundraiser in Minnesota? Just a thought. A week later she was shipped off to Yale hospital for pain?

I am finding the whole thing astoundingly peculiar. Isn't she still being treated by that Doctor at Tufts? Maybe they aren't allowed to cross the border between Connecticut and Massachusetts?
Just for fun, I thought I would bring this post, on this thread, forward from October 2014. It was at a time when I believe the Pelletiers were doing paybacks for all the help they got specifically from Staver and his 'fundraising'.
 

annahanna

New Member
Joined
May 13, 2014
Messages
301
Reaction score
0
It is my understanding that in MA, Medical Malpractice Tribunals must be held within 15 days of the defendant filing their answer to the complaint. Children's and the 3 doctors all filed on April 6th. That would mean that the tribunal(s) must be held on or before April 21st. The Pelletiers do not have to prove their case at the tribunal, but they do have to present evidence that shows that there is, in fact, an indication of malpractice and not just a difference of opinion or an unfortunate outcome.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/35/3/286.full
The standard of law for the Tribunal is to:
… determine if the evidence presented if properly substantiated is sufficient to raise a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry or whether the plaintiff's case is merely an unfortunate medical result… . ubstantial evidence is that which a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.1

The KJC Law Firm is relatively small with only 4 full time attorneys and one consulting counsel. I wonder if they have the resources necessary to present evidence at 3 separate tribunals in 3 different specialty areas in such a short period of time. They would have known that a tribunal would be standard, The law does allow for 1 combined tribunal covering multiple specialty areas if the plaintiff is suing the facility as well - but the doctors have the right to request individual hearings as they did here. I am betting that they assumed they would have until June to prepare as a delayed answer to the complaint is more typical. By answering the complaint so quickly, BCH's legal team may have put a significant strain on the plaintiff;s counsel.

If the tribunal(s) rule in the Pelletiers favor, the suit will go forward. If the tribunal(s) rule in BCH and the doctors' favor, the suit can still go forward, but the Pelletiers will be required to post a cash bond - and the ruling of the tribunal and all evidence presented is admissible in court. The cash bond is set by law at $6000. Since there will (likely) be 3 tribunals, this may require bond payment X3 or $18,000 cash. There is a provision in the law that allows the court to reduce - not eliminate - the bond for an indigent plaintiff. The bankruptcy issue will come into play, but I don't know if that would actually classify them as indigent. The amount of the bond can also be increased at the judge's discretion.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleII/Chapter231/Section60B

ETA - if the tribunal finds for the defendants and the Pelletiers opt to push forward with the suit, they will have 30days to pay the cash bond. if they do not, the case will be dismissed.
 

annahanna

New Member
Joined
May 13, 2014
Messages
301
Reaction score
0
Just for fun, I thought I would bring this post, on this thread, forward from October 2014. It was at a time when I believe the Pelletiers were doing paybacks for all the help they got specifically from Staver and his 'fundraising'.

I do recall that Linda was at home alone with Justina just before her hospitalization. I think a lot of things will come out that the Pelletiers would prefer to keep confidential.

They may find that a lawsuit wasn't really in their best interest.
 

sweetmom

Member
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
If it is true that the Pelletiers no long face foreclosure on their home, because they unethically used money donated to "free Justina" to pay off the arrears and liens, then they are now living in a $500,000+ home with 11 rooms and an inground pool. Indigent? Not exactly. I hope the court takes that into consideration.
 

sweetmom

Member
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
To repeat a posting I just made and somehow lost: I apologize if the original post shows up too.
If the Pelletiers lose their case or are told they cannot proceed, the whining and howling from their gullible followers will be deafening. They will just see it as proof that "the system" is out to get the Pelletiers, that BCH and the state are in cahoots to destroy this family, that BCH did conduct secret and horrible experiments on helpless kids, and on and on and on. Paranoia runs deep with these folks. No sensible, reasonable ruling by a court is going to persuade them that they have been hoodwinked by the family and its advisors.
Having said all that, I strongly hope the case does go to trial so that finally, the BCH side of the story can be made public..
 
Top