NM nurse removing birth control without patients consent

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is not a criminal matter as no charges have been filed. The civil claims made by the plaintiff have already been presented here.

The point being, it OUGHT to be handled criminally as well as civil.

[Bilbo]

This is not a criminal matter as no charges have been filed. The civil claims made by the plaintiff have already been presented here.

The point being, it OUGHT to be handled criminally as well as civil.

If for no other reason than I doubt she can lose her license over a civil case.

[General Zod]

If for no other reason than I doubt she can lose her license over a civil case.

Uhm, no. Many doctors end up losing their licenses over malpractice lawsuits. I'll give you three guesses as to which type of case those generally are.

[Kanastrous]

In the states where I'm familiar (at all) with policy, physicians' licenses can only be pulled by state medical licensing/review boards. And it can take an appalling degree of malpractice sometimes, to persuade a board to do that.

[Posner]

So, like, is there anyone in this thread who actually knows anything about civil or criminal law commenting on the civil and/or criminal liabilities of the nurse in question? "Clear cut case of battery"--really? Okay, which New Mexico statute did she violate? "Class action lawsuit at the minimum"--where's the evidence a class-action case is possible? I don't doubt that there's a potential lawsuit here, and that laws were probably violated (certainly professional ethics were), but it would be nice if people could bring some evidence to the table when they play amateur lawyer.

Yeah the class action thing won't fly unless she finds herself some more members of the class, but really there isn't much advantage to doing it. The two biggest civil actions I can think of are the battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Battery because it was an intended unlawful touching. IIED would be a big one, especially since you can just pile on the damages because it isn't really quantifiable aside from therapy and whatnot. The plaintiff might not want to push the criminal charges too much; if there is a criminal case open against the nurse she could pull the self incrimination act and weasel out of giving a deposition. The hospital is the one the plaintiff will really be going after, but deposing the nurse is critical to that. As far as my sources go, battery and IIED are general common law principles and the bit about the self incrimination is from personal experience working as an investigator for a public defender.

I should think the counter-argument is that the plaintiff's willingness to use an IUD to avoid conception, does not imply that she was willing to resort to abortion once pregnant.

You're definitely right, I was just have a little fun with tort law. That's all she would have to say, that she is pro-birth control and anti-abortion. The truth of that statement would be manifest in her not aborting the fetus. Plus the argument is such an asshole move that walks that fine line of pissing off pro-lifers(she should have gotten abortion) and pro-choicers (using financial incentives to coerce someone into abortion) on the jury.

[Darth Wong]

Doesn't the unauthorized performance of medical procedures constitute a form of assault, if it can be shown that it was intentional rather than the result of negligence? Why call it battery instead?

[Simplicius]

Assault and battery are two different offenses; battery is offensive contact while assault is the threat of battery. Since in this case the plaintiff was not aware that the defendant was going to remove her IUD without permission ahead of time, a claim of assault would be groundless.