Thread: Court: Immigrant's family can sue over health care

Court: Immigrant's family can sue over health care10/02/08 13:29:16




An appeals court has upheld a decision allowing the family of a man who died of cancer while being detained by immigration officials to sue the government for allegedly denying him medical care.

Francisco Castaneda's relatives allege that government officials for 11 months refused to authorize a meaningful exam of a painful lesion that turned out to be penile cancer. The Salvadoran immigrant, who had faced deportment following a drug conviction, had his penis amputated before dying in February 2007 at age 36.

Four months before he died, Castaneda testified before a House subcommittee that was examining medical care at immigration detention centers.

The government argued unsuccessfully before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that its employees were protected from lawsuits. The panel unanimously upheld a March decision by a Los Angeles federal judge.

http://www.fresnobee.com/384/story/910992.html

Figures> While we have American taxpayers are dieing of cancer everyday!
That can't afford to pay for healthcare. Our Hospices's are full of younger
women and men being treated to late as a result of unaffordable healthcare. While our governement allows this!
This I know for a fact as I have volunteered at a local hospice.

High court wary of suit over detainee medical care

By SUZANNE GAMBOA (AP) – 9 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices appeared reluctant Tuesday to allow the family of an illegal immigrant to sue government doctors personally for claims of shockingly poor medical care.

The federal government has admitted negligence in doctors' poor treatment of Francisco Castaneda, 36, a native of El Salvador who died after his untreated penile cancer spread to the rest of his body. But the government's attorneys insist the doctors are immune from personal liability. A U.S. District Court in California and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.

At the high court, however, Conal Doyle, an attorney for Castaneda's survivors, seemed unable to convince the justices that the doctors are not protected from personal damage suits if they violated Castaneda's constitutional rights.

Justice Stephen Breyer expressed skepticism about parts of Doyle's arguments. In cases like Castaneda's, Congress decided suing the federal government is the exclusive remedy, he said.

"That's the problem for you in this case," Breyer said.

Attorneys for the doctors and the federal government said Congress in a 1970 law gave immunity to Public Health Service doctors who treat immigrants in detention.

Under that law, Castaneda's survivors can only sue the federal government, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which bars jury trials and punitive damages and limits economic damages to those allowed under state law. If they sued in California, Castaneda's wife and daughter could be limited to about $250,000 in damages.

A lawsuit against the doctors personally would not be so restricted.

"This is not a case where there is no other relief," said Justice Samuel Alito.

Doyle insisted subsequent laws have curtailed some of the immunity given the government doctors.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy said immunity clauses are intended to make employees secure against both foreseen and unforeseen circumstances.

"If we limit it (the immunity), then Congress would have to re-enact a statute every time there was some new cause of action?" Kennedy asked Elaine Goldenberg, the doctors' attorney.

The gruesome details of Castaneda's poor treatment, which the district court described as "conduct that transcends negligence by miles," were not discussed by the high court.

According to his attorneys, Castaneda was never given a biopsy to diagnose the lesions on his penis that bled and festered. He was treated with ibuprofen, antihistamines and antibiotics and was given extra boxer shorts while in detention. His penis later was amputated but by then the cancer had spread and he died.

A decision is expected later this year.

The case is Hui v. Castaneda, 08-1529.

www.google.com