Update to Lisa Marie Pond case October 18, 2009 8:06 PM   Subscribe


I read this blog post when it came out. I'm upset that the court decided not to hear the case.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:11 PM on October 18, 2009


Thank you for this update.
posted by lazaruslong at 8:16 PM on October 18, 2009


I had forgotten about this case. It made me angry then and makes me angry now. I cannot imagine the horror of being kept away while a loved one is dying a few meters away.

Is there any other legal recourse now that the court has dismissed the case?
posted by Kattullus at 8:16 PM on October 18, 2009


Why was the case dismissed?
posted by ocherdraco at 8:22 PM on October 18, 2009


What is the legal recourse when the Distric Court reuses to hear a case? I know that when the Supremes bail, it drops back down to Federal district court, but what happens here?
posted by DarlingBri at 8:32 PM on October 18, 2009


Disgusting. Utterly disgusting. I feel like punching a wall because of this hateful shit. Shame on Florida.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:46 PM on October 18, 2009 [5 favorites]


"Why was the case dismissed?"

For myriad sad reasons, no doubt.
posted by klangklangston at 8:47 PM on October 18, 2009


Evil horseshit asshole motherfuckers. Why do people feel the need to do this to others? Why do I wind up saying "and you call yourself a Christian?" so goddamned much?
posted by notsnot at 8:57 PM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


Holy fucking hell -- there is no way to take that back. I am very, very hopeful that we will reach a point soon where we recognize that family is not easily defined (and is certainly not defined by sex or gender) and that we begin acknowledging all sorts of families, but it is so painful to realize that even if everyone magically wakes up tomorrow with real respect for diverse types of families and romantic partnerships, it is too late for these poor kids and their mothers. Even knowing that it's the case in general, it's painful to realize so fully that there's just no taking this shit back and we can make things better in the future but that fucking God damn bullshit happened and it's too fucking late for that family to get the respect and treatment they deserve. Obviously you try to make things better, but sometimes it's just really, really discouraging.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:17 PM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


That report is highly partisan, to say the least. Sometimes there is more than one side to a story, and I'd be interested to know if there is another side to this one. For instance, it might be the case that under Florida law, cohabitation doesn't count as "family".

It would also be interesting to know exactly what the case was with the adoptions. Were both women truly legal parents? Or was it just one of them, and the other kind of unofficial?

I think this situation was truly unfortunate -- but it may not be the case that the people at he hospital were "evil horseshit asshole motherfuckers". They might have had no choice under Florida law.

The judge will have explained his rationale for dismissing the case in his decision. And the decision should be a matter of public record. That would be another interesting thing to read. Judges sometimes are stupid and vicious, but the majority are conscientious and careful.

If we are to be given an update on this, why not update all sides of it? If for no other reason than that if it did turn out that the hospital and judge acted correctly under Florida law, then we know which laws to work to change.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:52 PM on October 18, 2009


Actually... this may have been a legal failing, not on the part of the judge, but on the part of the plantiff. I am still trying to dig up the briefs that were filed, but the decision refers to four claims of negligence, one of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and one of breach of fiduciary duty. This is the weakest sauce they could have led with; violation of civil rights and/or equal protection would be the obvious runners here.

IANAL and the above is just what I gathered from reading the decision, but if that is the case I hope the family re-files, with a better case and better legal representation, and wins. In no way am I arguing that the hospital should be allowed to get away with what they did, which is reprehensible; I'm just saying that faced with the arguments provided by the family's attorney, he may not have had a lot of leeway in his decision. (Again, I don't know for sure.)
posted by DarlingBri at 9:59 PM on October 18, 2009


To be totally clear, I do think the hospital staff were evil horseshit asshole motherfuckers - I'm just trying to understand how this decision could have been handed down.
posted by DarlingBri at 10:00 PM on October 18, 2009


The lack of response to human suffering here is inhuman and staggering.
posted by nola at 10:20 PM on October 18, 2009 [4 favorites]


The part that gets me is them letting a priest in at the end...demonstrating that it was nothing but disgusting bigotry that motivated them. Unless the priest is somehow related?

Janice requested that the priest attend, and she was able to enter the room with the priest:

"I immediately asked for a Catholic Priest to perform Lisa’s Last rites. A short time later, a Catholic priest escorted me back to recite the Last Rites and it was my first time in nearly 5hrs of seeing Lisa." (from the 'update' link)

That being said, the whole episode is appalling, especially the self-righteous bastard who had the nerve to tell her 'you're in an anti-gay city and state'. I just cannot understand how people lack the most basic compassion in these circumstances.
posted by twirlypen at 10:33 PM on October 18, 2009


I'm reading the legal decision now (and DarlingBri, thanks for linking to it).

One of the interesting things is that Langbehn and the kids were not denied access to Pond before she died. The kids were refused access to Pond when she was in the trauma center -- but that's an area where allowing strangers in could introduce germs or interfere with treatment, and the judge didn't want to second guess the decision. Langbehn did enter the trauma center and was there when last rites were administered.

And after Pond was moved out of the trauma center, all of them were allowed to see her.

So the headline ("...wasn't permitted to see her...") is at least exaggerated. What really happened was that they weren't permitted to see her as much as they wanted to, when they wanted to, but the judge decided there were medically valid reasons for that.

The complaints against the doctors were dismissed with prejudice because they are immunized against such claims by Florida law. The complaints against the hospital were dismissed without prejudice because the judge found that the claimed damages didn't rise to a level which would be actionable under Florida law.

The judge's decision appears to be well reasoned and clearly based on Florida law and Florida legal precedent. I see no trace of anti-gay prejudice in what the judge writes. Before you break out the torches and pitchforks, please read it.

My conclusion is that the plaintiff didn't make very strong case. It may be that a strong case wasn't possible.

A couple of days ago there was an FPP about a woman who claimed that the security people at an airport had taken her baby away from her and taken it to another room. It turns out she wasn't telling the truth. The security people released video from the security cameras showing that it hadn't happened the way she said.

I can understand that Langbehn and her children are utterly pissed off and heartbroken about what happened, but based on the evidence presented to the judge (which was agreed to by both plaintiffs and defendants) their outraged characterization of what took place isn't right, either.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:14 PM on October 18, 2009 [16 favorites]


This kind of thing makes me want to throw up with terror. It also makes me want to beat people to death with my fists.

Still don't believe that some of us are second-class citizens? Still don't believe that it matters?

Fuck.
posted by rtha at 11:21 PM on October 18, 2009


One of the interesting things is that Langbehn and the kids were not denied access to Pond before she died. The kids were refused access to Pond when she was in the trauma center -- but that's an area where allowing strangers in could introduce germs or interfere with treatment, and the judge didn't want to second guess the decision. Langbehn did enter the trauma center and was there when last rites were administered.

And after Pond was moved out of the trauma center, all of them were allowed to see her.


Now that most of the links in the original post are dead, I hope this is the case. Not that it's a fantastic situation, but otherwise my heart hurts so much for this.
posted by aclevername at 11:26 PM on October 18, 2009


One of the interesting things is that Langbehn and the kids were not denied access to Pond before she died. The kids were refused access to Pond when she was in the trauma center -- but that's an area where allowing strangers in could introduce germs or interfere with treatment, and the judge didn't want to second guess the decision. Langbehn did enter the trauma center and was there when last rites were administered.

So, what you're saying is, Langbehn was lying when she says she sat in the trauma center waiting room watching family members of other patients being allowed into the back.

I guess it will take having CCTV footage to determine the truth in this instance?

I think, overall, Langbehn is a much more lucid writer than the TSA babynapping woman, and I find the ring of truth in her writing. That the judge chooses hear the case means simply that Florida law treats gay and lesbian persons as second-class citizens without recognition of their relationships, and does not have anything to do with germs or anything. But we will likely never know, unless a hetero-married couple from MetaFilter can arrange to have a health crisis in the same trauma center and report on their experience when requesting to see their partner.
posted by hippybear at 11:54 PM on October 18, 2009 [3 favorites]


So, what you're saying is, Langbehn was lying when she says she sat in the trauma center waiting room watching family members of other patients being allowed into the back.

No, what I'm saying is that the patient being seen in that case wasn't in the same condition, so the medical decision was different. Or rather, that's what the judge said.

"It may sometimes make sense for doctors to allow close relatives to visit a patient inside a hospital, even in a trauma unit or an intensive care unit, unless they have medical reasons for not allowing visitation. Visitation may, in certain situations, even be therapeutic. But decisions as to visitation must be left to the medical personnel in charge of the patient, without second-guessing by juries and courts. A trauma unit is not like a regular hospital setting, and visitors may interfere with what medical personnel are trying to accomplish in a difficult environment, or bring with them germs or microbes that create other unexpected problems. A decision to not allow visitation in a trauma unit setting – where emotions are already at their breaking point and where lives may literally hang in the balance – does not create “unreasonable risks” of harm to the patient or to the putative visitors so as to establish a legal duty in tort."
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 12:15 AM on October 19, 2009


it may not be the case that the people at he hospital were "evil horseshit asshole motherfuckers". They might have had no choice under Florida law.

I think visitation rules are a matter of hospital policy. I can't find a cite, but it is my understanding that JCAHO, the accrediting body for hospitals, defines family quite broadly. Regardless, I've spent a lot of time in hospitals both as a family member and an employee, and I would be shocked if anybody ever got in any actual trouble for occasionally not enforcing the visitation policy. Hell, in the ICU where I worked, patients were allowed a maximum of two visitors, for 15 minutes at a time, at five set times throughout the day. Normally they stuck to the 15 minute scheduled windows, or maybe 20. Sometimes a third person would be allowed, as long as they weren't in the way. And if somebody was imminently dying, my god, there were sometimes entire extended families crowded in the hallway all afternoon. Even if a hospital was more strict, the kind thing to do is quietly note that siblings are allowed, are you sure you aren't her sister? and then feign ignorance if anyone notices, which they probably won't. Perhaps Florida is somehow radically different from Kentucky in their approach to hospital visitation, but I'm gonna have to go with evil horseshit asshole motherfuckers.
posted by little e at 12:38 AM on October 19, 2009 [4 favorites]


My understanding from what I have read is that she was allowed to see her (with the priest) only after her partner had been declared brain-dead. She writes, "I will always have to live with the guilt of not being there in her final moments, when she was restrained in the Trauma unit, or hold her hand as she slipped away."

No one should have to die alone. This is an infuriating case.
posted by prefpara at 3:02 AM on October 19, 2009 [1 favorite]


It is an infuriating case. Today is the last day they can file an appeal, but on the family's blog, Langbehn says she has chosen not to. I can understand not wanting to put her kids through this, but I'm 100% with everyone who's outraged that this family will not see justice in a court of law. When I first heard about this, I was ready to petrol bomb this judge's house, but when you actually read the decision it is sympathetic and well reasoned, with the judge explaining very clearly (if at length) why he couldn't find for them on each of these counts.

I can only assume everyone else in this thread is, like me, railing against the injustice of this because clearly both Langbehn and Pond's civil rights and right to equal protection under the law were grossly violated. But for whatever reason - precedents of the courts in that district, poor legal council, or some other factor - those are not the grounds on which they sued.

The estate was represented by Lambda Legal, the nation's oldest GLBT defence organisation. If you look up Florida on their site, you can see just from their tiny chart that Florida is perilous for same-sex families. Nothing other than Langbehn's durable power of attorney was recognised, because under Florida law, nothing else (including the adoption of the children) had to be. To me, at least, that is not a circumstance where you sue for a failure of fiduciary obligation. Instead, you seek to overturn the laws that allowed this descrimination to happen in the first place with major civil rights litigation - which this was not.

You can read their press release on the case. The whole thing just feels like the family got a really bum steer from Lambda here.
posted by DarlingBri at 4:15 AM on October 19, 2009 [4 favorites]


I am very, very hopeful that we will reach a point soon where we recognize that family is not easily defined (and is certainly not defined by sex or gender) and that we begin acknowledging all sorts of families

"Family" is very easily defined. As a customs agent at Boston's Logan International Airport said to me "We get every kind of person coming through here. If you say you're a family, you're a family." Even if one member is incapacitated, it doesn't take much investigation to find out if they feel the same way as the person making the claim.

This was motivated by hate, not confusion.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:28 AM on October 19, 2009 [2 favorites]


it may not be the case that the people at he hospital were "evil horseshit asshole motherfuckers". They might have had no choice under Florida law.

You always have a choice to do the humane thing.
posted by hermitosis at 6:54 AM on October 19, 2009 [10 favorites]



"It may sometimes make sense for doctors to allow close relatives to visit a patient inside a hospital, even in a trauma unit or an intensive care unit, unless they have medical reasons for not allowing visitation. Visitation may, in certain situations, even be therapeutic. But decisions as to visitation must be left to the medical personnel in charge of the patient, without second-guessing by juries and courts.


If you claim it's someone else's job to make the hard decision, then you'll never be held accountable for it, and no dangerous precedents will be set! This is what is known as passing the buck. Previous examples include the Federal government refusing to acknowledge gay unions, so that the "states can decide for themselves".
posted by hermitosis at 6:59 AM on October 19, 2009


I realize that the productive thing to do would be to petition, send money, write Congresscritters (okay, that's mostly a token effort), and so forth, but on the whole, I would rather set something on fire.
posted by adipocere at 7:03 AM on October 19, 2009 [4 favorites]


You know, I totally do not understand at all why only family is allowed to make hospital visits in the first place.

Is there a doctor in the house who can explain the medical risks of being visited by people I'm not related to?
posted by Sys Rq at 9:06 AM on October 19, 2009


You know, I totally do not understand at all why only family is allowed to make hospital visits in the first place.

Is there a doctor in the house who can explain the medical risks of being visited by people I'm not related to?


This is an excellent, excellent point. When I said earlier "I am very, very hopeful that we will reach a point soon where we recognize that family is not easily defined" what I meant was that it's easy to define family if you refer to it as people related to you by blood or marriage, but I really don't think it's that simple; family includes lots of people who might have no legal claim on you, but are none-the-less a huge part of your life.

When Mayor Curley says
"Family" is very easily defined. As a customs agent at Boston's Logan International Airport said to me "We get every kind of person coming through here. If you say you're a family, you're a family."
I think he's dead on right -- who the hell are we to tell anyone who is and isn't part of their family?
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:22 AM on October 19, 2009 [1 favorite]


This is sick. I missed the original post, thanks for the follow up.
posted by sandraregina at 9:28 AM on October 19, 2009


I understand why health professional need the ability to exclude visitors - but it seems squicky here, because it doesn't seem like any of those reasons are relevant.

Visitors can get in the way...of providing care particularly where there are several visitors crowding the space, and they can become upset seeing a loved on in a painful situation (questioning care, being disruptive and disturbing other patients, become threatening, etc.)...and I can imagine if the health providers are trying to provide care, it can make it extra hard if they have to manage an loudly emotional/violent/etc. as well.

Also, I suppose the 'family' only policy sort of makes sense, particularly if in the moment, the patient can't speak, and there is no way to tell if the patient would like the visitor to have access, say to friends, work colleagues, the curious, etc...so, suddenly, anyone could come in. There needs to be some sort of cut-off, but it can't take the nuance of real life into consideration. (like do I really want to see my estranged father more than my best friend since I was 6 during my last moments if I'm in a coma?)

If you google around you will see that there are examples of hetero married and single couples being denied access, because health professionals will have the ability to say that medical necessity required excluding the visitor. So it seems like the problem is that health professionals need leeway, but they have to assess fairly - it seems that the times that necessary leeway really fails is in the face of discrimination.

So what's super questionable is that as I said, here, it seems like discrimination because the other issues don't seem to apply: it's a small group of people. They were not being disruptive. And the partner had documentation of her status. And there was a health professional who stated that they disapproved of their life style.

I just feel sad for everyone all around - the family, the hospital member who did something so despicable - everyone.
posted by anitanita at 9:48 AM on October 19, 2009


Florida is perilous indeed. Whoa. DarlingBri, the press release link from Lambda Legal that you put in your comment no longer seems to be active - what was the gist of it?
posted by futureisunwritten at 11:18 AM on October 19, 2009


futureisunwritten: DarlingBri, the press release link from Lambda Legal that you put in your comment no longer seems to be active - what was the gist of it?

They appear to have re-named it; try here. In case that isn't working for whatever reason, it's Newsroom > Press Releases > Federal Court Dismisses Lambda Legal’s Lawsuit Against Jackson Memorial Hospital on Behalf of Deceased Lesbian’s Family

The gist: A recap of the ordeal, a lot of disappointment, no addressing the legal merits of their case or the decision.
posted by DarlingBri at 11:27 AM on October 19, 2009


I live in Maine, where the right to marry was recently revised to include same-sex marriage. There is a referendum to repeal this right. Voting is in a few weeks; it's expected to be close. This story is why same sex marriage must be legal.

Even if Jesus of Nazareth, commonly known as The Christ, never spoke out about same sex union, he frequently spoke out to preach compassion, kindness and love. This behavior is the antithesis of kindness. It's hateful, spiteful, and mean, mean in the sense of unkind as well as stingy and small.
posted by theora55 at 3:40 PM on October 19, 2009 [1 favorite]


You assume, theora55, that so-called Christians give a good goddamn about behaving in a Christ-like manner. The evidence that they do not is writ large all around you.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:44 PM on October 19, 2009


five fresh fish - You assume that just because someone tries to hide their prejudice behind religion that every person belonging to that religion shares those prejudices. The evidence that we don't all share them is also writ quite large.
posted by soelo at 9:00 PM on October 19, 2009 [1 favorite]


You assume that just because someone tries to hide their prejudice behind religion that every person belonging to that religion shares those prejudices.

I do?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:20 PM on October 19, 2009


Thanks for the link DB. Very disappointing is an understatement.
posted by futureisunwritten at 6:48 AM on October 20, 2009


fff - perhaps I misunderstood, but it is not clear what you mean by "so-called Christians".
posted by soelo at 9:06 AM on October 20, 2009


Even some of us that are mormon (shocking, I know) think that not letting someone (aka anyone) see a loved one in time of need or pain is barbaric, no matter what the "official" relationship.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:16 AM on October 20, 2009


I thought that in the context of this thread, it was fairly clear: "so-called Christians" are those "Christians" who would prevent a family member from visiting their dying lover.

Or, for that matter, who would deny a person the right to a full, loving relationship. That's not a Christian attitude in the least.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:24 AM on October 20, 2009


Isn't that what theora55 pretty much said?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:29 AM on October 20, 2009


More or less.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:04 AM on October 20, 2009


FFF, that sounds an awful like "No True Scotsman".
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 12:36 PM on October 20, 2009


Uhuh. And this is my "I don't give a shit" face. "Christians" who don't support social equality can fuck right off and die.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:57 PM on October 20, 2009


« Older IOWA represent!   |   Not on the internet? Impossible! Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments