Summary of the Case

This complaint arises from negligence in a medical setting that can be understood by a person of ordinary intelligence using common knowledge. The defendants failed to ask the patient what the mechanism of his injury was, instead relying on an unattributed and erroneous note made by someone who was not a witness to the accident. Based solely on that erroneous statement, the Medical Defendants substituted their judgment for the patient’s and refused to allow the patient to contact his family or get a ride home from a professional driver.

The claims that arose during the two weeks immediately after are brought under two alternate theories. The Plaintiffs’ preferred theory is that refusal of consent ended the doctor-patient relationship, and the further claims arise out of ordinary tort, contract, and civil rights law. The alternative is that Lynn’s claims are subsumed into the medical injury claim, and Hammett’s claims fall under tort, contract, and civil rights law, particularly the ADA.

In response to the Plaintiffs’ threats of a lawsuit, the Defendants allowed Lynn to leave the hospital on January 27, 2024. Instead of attempting to make the Plaintiffs whole, the Defendants manifested their intent to commit fraud on the court and obstruct justice. They refused to amend the medical record to correct the mechanism of the initial injury and destroyed the videos taken in the emergency room and during Lynn’s escape attempts through the hospital halls and stairways.