28:
345: (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).").
381: (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").
167:) a mentally incompetent patient who was subjected to an abortion without her consent and another patient who was subjected to an eye surgery without the patient's consent. Under the appellate court's interpretation of the statute, a court located in the District of Columbia must apply the "best interest of the patient" standard to a person who was never competent, and the court must apply the "known wishes of the patient" standard to a person who was once competent. The appellate decision was
283:, Donna Hammaker wrote that the Appellate Court's decision in Tarlow is one of the most recent cases to tackle the issue of medical decision making for the mentally disabled and the court logically determined that an incompetent person may make decisions that have harmful or even deadly consequences because they may not know what is in their best interest. Christine Ryan cited the decision in Tarlow in the
230:
the
District of Columbia from authorizing elective surgeries for MRDDA patients under its present policy, ruling that MRDDA must follow the 'known wishes of the patient' standard in determining whether to authorize surgeries on MRDDA patients. However, the District Court denied class action status
183:
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
234:
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.
293:
fact checked whether the decision in Tarlow meant that people with disabilities could be forced to undergo elective surgeries, including abortions, and Snopes determined that the claim was a mixture of truth and falsehood. The argument in Tarlow did "authorize elective medical procedures without
238:
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, and in 2011 the court authorized the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint and ordered both parties to file another joint case
235:"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.'"
247:
wrote "his case involves weighty allegations that have long awaited resolution. For the reasons discussed above, the court concludes that they must remain unresolved somewhat longer, and will therefore deny the
District’s motion to dismiss."
184:
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.
363: (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.").
217:
status because there was not evidence the
District of Columbia would repeat the alleged harm. The plaintiffs amended their motion for class action status, and in 2005, the court granted class status for the purpose of
160:
statute that stated the conditions for authorizing a non-emergency surgical procedure on a mentally incompetent person. This case developed out of an appeal to a district court decision that was brought on behalf of
657:
149:
38:
490:
255:, 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.
49:
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.
555:"Revisiting the Legal Standards That Govern Request To Sterilize Profoundly Incompetent Children: In light of the "Ashley Treatment," Is a New Standard Appropriate?"
194:
88:
554:
672:
652:
647:
527:
289:, and wrote that courts properly apply substituted judgment analysis when the patient once had competency but became incompetent.
642:
472:
606:"Did Brett Kavanaugh Argue That People with Disabilities Could Be Forced to Undergo Elective Surgeries, Including Abortions?"
279:. The author wrote that the appellate decision in Tarlow would have been approved by Lord Eldon. In the 2011 publication of
271:
on the appellate decision, and stated that the issue of substituted consent is complex and traces its history to
England in
577:
537:
342:
637:
294:
first making an attempt to ascertain the wishes of the patient;" however, it did not specifically mention abortion.
321:
605:
179:
The following is the background of the case according to the Notes in the 2002 Memorandum
Opinion and Order.
360:
436:
378:
667:
168:
198:
27:
202:
157:
454:
8:
396:
131:
285:
219:
123:
569:
533:
252:
244:
240:
223:
662:
409:
153:
127:
631:
504:
272:
573:
214:
658:
United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit cases
239:
management report. In 2013, the court denied the
District of Columbia's
290:
268:
206:
227:
150:
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
39:
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
502:
163:
509:
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
265:
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
529:
Health Care Management and the Law: Principles and Applications
410:"Title 21. Fiduciary Relations and Persons with Mental Illness"
281:
Health Care Management and the Law: Principles and Applications
205:
because there was not sufficient evidence that this case was
201:
wrote that the plaintiffs may bring the lawsuit against the
145:
195:
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
148:
376 (D.C. Cir. 2007), is a unanimous decision of the
109:
Upheld the constitutionality of D.C.'s 2003 statute
91:
granted injunctive relief from D.C.'s 2003 statute.
503:Timothy Houchin; J. Richard Ciccone (June 2008).
629:
552:
525:
673:Compulsory sterilization in the United States
243:the second amended complaint. District Judge
653:Mental health case law in the United States
141:Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia
21:Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia
450:Does I Through III v. District of Columbia
432:Does I Through III v. District of Columbia
392:Does I Through III v. District of Columbia
374:Does I Through III v. District of Columbia
356:Does I Through III v. District of Columbia
338:Does I Through III v. District of Columbia
277:Ex parte Whitbread, in the matter of Hinde
213:. In 2003, Kennedy denied the plaintiffs
26:
600:
598:
332:
330:
251:In 2016, the District Court, under Judge
193:In 2002, the case was brought before the
231:in regard to awarding monetary damages.
630:
595:
361:Civil Action 01-02398 (HHK) D.D.C.
327:
648:June 2007 events in the United States
553:Christine Ryan (September 26, 2008).
455:Civil Action 01-2398 (HHK) D.D.C.
397:Civil Action 01-02398 (HHK) D.D.C
311:
309:
307:
211:Evans & United States v. Williams
188:
473:Civil Action 01-2398 (RC) D.D.C.
156:, in which the Court upheld a 2003
13:
304:
14:
684:
532:. Cengage Learning. p. 515.
526:Donna Hammaker (March 19, 2010).
505:"Consent in Incompetent Patients"
546:
519:
496:
478:
643:2007 in United States case law
460:
442:
424:
402:
384:
366:
348:
1:
297:
174:
258:
7:
152:, written by Circuit Judge
130:; and Senior Circuit Judge
10:
689:
486:Doe et al., v. Dist of. Co
437:593 F. Supp.2d 115
99:Remanded to District Court
491:206 F.Supp.3d 583
343:238 F.Supp.2d 212
209:by earlier litigation in
118:
113:
108:
103:
95:
83:
78:
70:
62:
54:
44:
34:
25:
20:
638:2007 in Washington, D.C.
171:to the District Court.
186:
379:232 F.R.D. 18
199:Henry H. Kennedy, Jr.
181:
322:489 F.3d 376
275:'s 1816 decision of
203:District of Columbia
158:District of Columbia
132:Stephen F. Williams
562:Fordham Law Review
468:Doe v. Dist of. Co
317:Doe v. Dist of. Co
286:Fordham Law Review
189:Procedural history
124:Thomas B. Griffith
96:Subsequent history
612:. August 16, 2018
583:on August 8, 2017
253:Rudolph Contreras
245:Rudolph Contreras
241:motion to dismiss
224:injunctive relief
197:. District Judge
137:
136:
680:
622:
621:
619:
617:
602:
593:
592:
590:
588:
582:
576:. Archived from
559:
550:
544:
543:
523:
517:
516:
500:
494:
488:
482:
476:
470:
464:
458:
452:
446:
440:
434:
428:
422:
421:
419:
417:
406:
400:
394:
388:
382:
376:
370:
364:
358:
352:
346:
340:
334:
325:
319:
313:
126:; Circuit Judge
114:Court membership
58:February 6, 2007
30:
18:
17:
688:
687:
683:
682:
681:
679:
678:
677:
668:Brett Kavanaugh
628:
627:
626:
625:
615:
613:
604:
603:
596:
586:
584:
580:
557:
551:
547:
540:
524:
520:
501:
497:
484:
483:
479:
466:
465:
461:
448:
447:
443:
430:
429:
425:
415:
413:
408:
407:
403:
390:
389:
385:
372:
371:
367:
354:
353:
349:
336:
335:
328:
315:
314:
305:
300:
261:
191:
177:
154:Brett Kavanaugh
128:Brett Kavanaugh
12:
11:
5:
686:
676:
675:
670:
665:
660:
655:
650:
645:
640:
624:
623:
594:
568:(1): 287–326.
545:
539:978-1428320048
538:
518:
495:
477:
459:
441:
423:
401:
383:
365:
347:
326:
302:
301:
299:
296:
260:
257:
190:
187:
176:
173:
135:
134:
122:Circuit Judge
120:
119:Judges sitting
116:
115:
111:
110:
106:
105:
101:
100:
97:
93:
92:
89:District Court
85:
81:
80:
76:
75:
72:
68:
67:
64:
60:
59:
56:
52:
51:
46:
45:Full case name
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
685:
674:
671:
669:
666:
664:
661:
659:
656:
654:
651:
649:
646:
644:
641:
639:
636:
635:
633:
611:
607:
601:
599:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
556:
549:
541:
535:
531:
530:
522:
515:(2): 246–248.
514:
510:
506:
499:
492:
487:
481:
474:
469:
463:
456:
451:
445:
438:
433:
427:
412:. Open Law DC
411:
405:
398:
393:
387:
380:
375:
369:
362:
357:
351:
344:
339:
333:
331:
323:
318:
312:
310:
308:
303:
295:
292:
288:
287:
282:
278:
274:
273:Earl of Eldon
270:
266:
256:
254:
249:
246:
242:
236:
232:
229:
225:
221:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
185:
180:
172:
170:
166:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
142:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
112:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
84:Prior history
82:
77:
73:
69:
66:June 12, 2007
65:
61:
57:
53:
50:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
614:. Retrieved
609:
587:December 19,
585:. Retrieved
578:the original
565:
561:
548:
528:
521:
512:
508:
498:
493: (2016).
485:
480:
475: (2013).
467:
462:
457: (2011).
449:
444:
439: (2009).
431:
426:
414:. Retrieved
404:
399: (2006).
391:
386:
373:
368:
355:
350:
337:
324: (2007).
316:
284:
280:
276:
264:
262:
250:
237:
233:
215:class action
210:
192:
182:
178:
162:
140:
139:
138:
79:Case history
74:489 F.3d 376
48:
15:
616:October 17,
220:declaratory
632:Categories
610:Snopes.com
298:References
291:Snopes.com
269:case brief
175:Background
259:Reception
207:precluded
574:18985934
416:July 28,
267:wrote a
228:enjoined
169:remanded
164:ex. rel.
71:Citation
663:Consent
104:Holding
63:Decided
572:
536:
489:,
471:,
453:,
435:,
395:,
377:,
359:,
341:,
320:,
144:, 489
55:Argued
581:(PDF)
558:(PDF)
226:and "
35:Court
618:2018
589:2017
570:PMID
534:ISBN
418:2015
263:The
222:and
146:F.3d
87:The
634::
608:.
597:^
566:77
564:.
560:.
513:36
511:.
507:.
329:^
306:^
620:.
591:.
542:.
420:.
161:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
