Today's Herald Leader has an AP story in which the civil trial against Dr. Guiler alleging unnecessary hysterectomies was continued due to protests outside of the courtroom. Fayette Circuit Court Judge Pamela Goodwine "postponed the trial until June 23, 2008, because of "pretrial publicity," including a letter circulated around the medical community."
In a subsequent (and much more detailed story than that of the AP) Brandon Ortiz at the Herald Leader reported that Judge Goodwine "said she will sanction a Lexington obstetrician and gynecologist, accused of performing unnecessary hysterectomies, over concerns by lawyers suing the doctor. The lawyers say that the physician's wife and employees attempted to taint potential jurors in a malpractice trial that was scheduled to start this week."
This medical negligence trial is centered on claims that Dr. Guiler performed unnecessary hysterectomies. Among the plaintiffs in this lawsuit were those claiming the "UK" branding a few years back.
This is not the first medical negligence case against Dr. Guiler that has made news. Lawyers will recall that Dr. Guiler was the defendant in the lawsuit Louisville attorney Ann Oldfather took up to the Kentucky Supreme Court (Guiliani v. Guiler) several years ago which held that minor children could maintain claim for loss of parental consortium for the wrongful death of their mother.
We were also able to locate on-line videos at the Smoking gun blog claiming a depiction of the UK marking - click here for video and story.
Here are the stories.
-
A judge has delayed the malpractice trial of a doctor accused of performing unnecessary hysterectomies, concerned about what plaintiffs allege was an attempt by the doctor's supporters to coerce the jury pool.
Dr. James Michael Guiler stirred national attention in 2003 after a woman accused him of branding in her uterus with the letters "UK" - for his University of Kentucky alma mater - before a routine hysterectomy.
The trial scheduled to begin Tuesday was to deal not with that case but with allegations by several women that he had performed unnecessary surgeries.
Fayette Circuit Judge Pamela Goodwine told The Associated Press by phone Tuesday that she postponed the trial until June 23, 2008, because of "pretrial publicity," including a letter circulated around the medical community.
The letter, signed by 14 people, encouraged Guiler's supporters to show up en masse outside the courthouse with "signs that best represent Dr. Mike's Christian practice and demeanor." * * *
The letter asks recipients to bring signs to the courthouse "that best represent Dr. Mike's Christian practice and demeanor."It also encourages supporters to attend the trial and speak to reporters.
"It would be wonderful to express your reasons for choosing to become Dr. Mike's patient, how he has made your health and quality of life better, and why you feel this trial is ludicrous and frivolous," the letter states.
The letter is signed by 14 of "Dr. Mike's grateful employees" at Women's Care Center, including Guiler's wife, Sherry. The center is a defendant in the lawsuit. * * *
Judge to sanction doctor for letters
LAWYERS CALL THEM ATTEMPT TO TAINT MALPRACTICE JURY
Dr. J. Michael Guiler has been accused of removing healthy uteri unnecessarily. 2003 file photo by Frank Anderson | StaffA Fayette judge said she will sanction a Lexington obstetrician and gynecologist, accused of performing unnecessary hysterectomies, over concerns by lawyers suing the doctor. The lawyers say that the physician's wife and employees attempted to taint potential jurors in a malpractice trial that was scheduled to start this week.
A lawsuit by five women accuses Dr. J. Michael Guiler of unnecessarily removing healthy uteri. Guiler has previously been in the national spotlight because of other lawsuits filed in 2003 alleging he had branded "UK" -- for University of Kentucky, his alma mater -- on uteri before he removed them.Giuliani v. Guiler
951 S.W.2d 318
Ky.,1997.
This appeal is from a decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the circuit court judgment denying the four minor children of Mary K. Giuliani, deceased, who died during childbirth, a claim for loss of parental consortium for the loss of love, affection, guidance, care, comfort and protection of their mother.
The question presented is whether this Court should overrule previous decisions of this Court and recognize the right of a minor child for the loss of parental consortium.
Mary K. Giuliani, age 33, died during the birth of her fourth child. Her other children were 9, 7 and 3 years of age respectively. Their father filed a claim for wrongful death as administrator, his own claim for loss of consortium and a claim for loss of consortium as next friend for each of the four minor children. The principal wrongful death case is still in the discovery stage at the circuit court level. The trial judge dismissed the claim for loss of consortium of the three minor children in a one-page partial summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but invited this Court to revisit the question of parental consortium. Both the circuit court and the Court of Appeals indicated a constraint on them as a result of the case of Brooks v. Burkeen, Ky., 549 S.W.2d 91 (1977). Later, Adams v. Miller, Ky., 908 S.W.2d 112 (1995), also refused to recognize such a claim on the basis that no other legislature or court had done so. The Court of Appeals stated in its opinion denying the claim that “We can only encourage our Supreme Court to revisit this issue in the light of modern developments in this area of the law.” This Court accepted discretionary review.
Dr. Guiler was the obstetrician but was not present at the time of delivery. He instructed the nurses at the hospital to induce labor. After seeing Mary at 6 p.m., the doctor decided he was not needed and left for dinner at the home of a friend. The record indicates that the nurses apparently became more concerned about the situation and unsuccessfully attempted to reach the doctor by numerous calls. Ultimately, Dr. Bennett, an anesthesiologist, an obstetric resident and members of the CODE team, none of whom were familiar with the case, attempted to aid the mother. The mother suffered a cardiac and respiratory collapse shortly after the child's birth and died.
Kentucky currently recognizes loss of consortium claims between husband and wife and the claim of a parent for the loss of the child's affection and companionship upon the death of a child. The question presented here is whether this Court should now recognize a child's loss of parental consortium as well. The Giuliani children through counsel argue that the loss of the parent's love and affection is devastating to any child. Children should be able to bring a loss of consortium claim to recover from the wrongdoer whose negligent acts have caused the harm. Such a cause of action does not currently exist in Kentucky but it should. The loss of consortium is a judge-made common law doctrine which this Court has the power and duty to modify and conform to the changing conditions of our society. When the common law is out of step with the times, this Court has a responsibility to change that law. Development of the common law is a judicial function and should not be confused with the expression of public policy by the legislature.
* * * *
It is the holding of this Court that Kentucky recognizes the claim of minor children for loss of parental consortium. The proof of such loss and the necessary proof of monetary loss resulting therefrom are factors to be considered by the trier of fact separate from any wrongful death claim pursued under the wrongful death statute. A claim for loss of parental consortium arises from a recognition of the common law as distinguished from statutory law.
Comments