Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia
Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
Full case name | Jane Doe, I, by her next friend Linda J. Tarlow, et al., Appellees v. District of Columbia and Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Administration, Appellants. |
Argued | February 6, 2007 |
Decided | June 12, 2007 |
Citation(s) | 489 F.3d 376 |
Case history | |
Prior history | The District Court granted injunctive relief from D.C.'s 2003 statute. |
Subsequent history | Remanded to District Court |
Holding | |
Upheld the constitutionality of D.C.'s 2003 statute | |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith; Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh; and Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams |
Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia, 489
Background
The following is the background of the case according to the Notes in the 2002 Memorandum Opinion and Order.
In 1978, defendants allegedly gave their consent for an abortion to be performed on plaintiff Jane Doe III, without consulting with Jane Doe III's legal representative and without obtaining substituted judgment from a court. [...] In 1984, defendants allegedly took the same action in regard to plaintiff Jane Doe I. [...] In 1994, defendants allegedly gave their consent for an elective surgical procedure to be performed on plaintiff Jane Doe II's eye, without consulting with Jane Doe II's mother who was also Jane Doe II's court-appointed advocate.[2]
Procedural history
In 2002, the case was brought before the
The decision of the District Court was appealed, and in 2007, the Court of Appeals overturned part of the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeals held that the District of Columbia's 2003 statute was constitutional and the law may distinguish two categories of persons who lack competency. "For patients who once had mental capacity, the decision must be based on the 'known wishes of the patient' if those wishes can be 'ascertained' . . . For those who have never had the mental capacity, the decision must be based on 'a good faith belief as to the best interests of the patient.'"[1][6]
In 2009 the District Court ordered both parties to submit a joint case management report to propose how the court should resolve the remaining issues in the case,
In 2016, the District Court, under Judge Rudolph Contreras, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and granted in part and denied in part, the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.[10]
Reception
The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online wrote a
References
- ^ a b c Doe v. Dist of. Co, 489 F.3d 376 (2007).
- ^ a b Does I Through III v. District of Columbia, 238 F.Supp.2d 212 (2002) ("In sum, at the present time, many questions remain. "The burden of establishing preclusion is placed on the party claiming it, and reasonable doubts will be resolved against an asserted preclusion." Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 546 F.Supp. 1251, 1271 (D.P.R.1982) (citations omitted). Without more guidance, the court cannot find that defendants have carried their burden. The court therefore denies defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings concerning plaintiffs' request for equitable relief, pursuant to Rule 12(c).").
- ^ Does I Through III v. District of Columbia, Civil Action 01-02398 (HHK) D.D.C. (2003) ("The court finds that it is nothing but sheer speculation that plaintiffs will, at some later date, be subjected to a medical procedure, consented to in an illegal manner by the District of Columbia.").
- ^ Does I Through III v. District of Columbia, 232 F.R.D. 18 (2005) ("ORDERED that the following class is CERTIFIED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) for purposes of determining plaintiffs' and the class members' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief All persons with mental retardation or other developmental disabilities who receive, will receive, or have in the past received, habilitation services from the District of Columbia, and for whom District of Columbia officials have consented to or will consent to any elective surgical procedure since 1970").
- ^ Does I Through III v. District of Columbia, Civil Action 01-02398 (HHK) D.D.C (2006).[permanent dead link]
- ^ "Title 21. Fiduciary Relations and Persons with Mental Illness". Open Law DC. Retrieved July 28, 2015.
- ^ Does I Through III v. District of Columbia, 593 F. Supp.2d 115 (2009).
- ^ Does I Through III v. District of Columbia, Civil Action 01-2398 (HHK) D.D.C. (2011).
- ^ Doe v. Dist of. Co, Civil Action 01-2398 (RC) D.D.C. (2013).
- ^ Doe et al., v. Dist of. Co, 206 F.Supp.3d 583 (2016).
- ^ Timothy Houchin; J. Richard Ciccone (June 2008). "Consent in Incompetent Patients". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 36 (2): 246–248.
- ISBN 978-1428320048.
- PMID 18985934. Archived from the original(PDF) on August 8, 2017. Retrieved December 19, 2017.
- ^ a b "Did Brett Kavanaugh Argue That People with Disabilities Could Be Forced to Undergo Elective Surgeries, Including Abortions?". Snopes.com. August 16, 2018. Retrieved October 17, 2018.