Counsel for UAMS and the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock filed a motion to dismiss the claims against the Board.

My pro se co-plaintiff and I filed an opposition, posted in its entirety below. For fun, I ran the brief through Westlaw Co-Counsel Brief Analyzer. This is how AI summarized our arguments. (Bold added):

This filing is a Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Response to the Board’s Motion to Dismiss in a case before the Circuit Court of Pulaski, Arkansas. The plaintiffs, Sean Lynn and Laura Hammett, are proceeding pro se against the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas. The document responds to the Board’s motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity claims.

The case involves allegations that Lynn was subjected to forced medical treatment without consent at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS). According to the complaint, Lynn was held in four-point restraints for up to three days at a time, forcibly administered various medications including fentanyl and lorazepam, and was starved during his confinement. The plaintiffs allege that no court petition was filed for permission to treat Lynn without his consent as required by Arkansas law, and that UAMS employees lied to the plaintiffs and withheld medical documentation for sixteen months.

The plaintiffs argue that sovereign immunity does not apply to their claims for prospective or declaratory relief against illegal or unconstitutional acts. They contend that the Board’s own cited authorities recognize exceptions to immunity for acts that are “ultra vires, wanton, capricious, in bad faith, injurious, or arbitrary.” The plaintiffs distinguish their case from the Board’s cited precedents by noting they are not seeking monetary damages from the Board but rather injunctive and declaratory relief. Additionally, the plaintiffs refute the Board’s assertion that Hammett is improperly representing Lynn, explaining that both plaintiffs signed the complaint and are representing themselves individually. The plaintiffs request that the Board’s motion to dismiss be denied.

Next, Co-Counsel analyzed the Board’s reply. Here is the summary. (Bold added):

This filing is a Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Separate Defendant Board of Trustees’ Motion to Dismiss in a case before the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas. The parties include plaintiffs Sean Lynn and Laura Hammett, who are proceeding pro se, and the defendant Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas, represented by Sherri L. Robinson. The case involves allegations related to medical treatment that plaintiff Lynn received at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS).

The Board of Trustees argues that sovereign immunity bars the plaintiffs’ claims against it. According to the document, the plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief that would force UAMS to change policies and terminate employees based on their disagreement with the medical care Lynn received. The Board contends that such relief would “operate to control State action” in violation of Article 5, Section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution, which states that “The State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts.” The Board maintains that the plaintiffs’ mere labeling of actions as “illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires” is insufficient to bypass sovereign immunity without specific factual allegations establishing that state actors acted outside statutory authority or violated constitutional commands.

The Board also raises concerns about the unauthorized practice of law, suggesting that plaintiff Hammett may be improperly representing Lynn. The Board notes that despite Lynn being listed as the primary plaintiff, it is Hammett’s name and address on the summons to receive responsive pleadings. The Board argues that if multiple pro se plaintiffs are involved, both should receive responsive pleadings. The Board of Trustees requests that the Complaint be dismissed as to it based on sovereign immunity and the potential unauthorized practice of law issues.

Let’s contrast what the plaintiff’s argued, with what the university board and attorneys claim the plaintiffs argued. Bold is direct quotes.

(1) Pro se plaintiffs: The case involves allegations that Lynn was subjected to forced medical treatment without consent at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS).

University mucky mucks: The case involves allegations related to medical treatment that plaintiff Lynn received at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS).

Well, calling the bigwigs big liars would be hyperbole. Allegations that Lynn was subjected to forced medical treatment without consent are technically allegations related to medical treatment, but do not convey that the plaintiffs’ allegations were about overriding patient autonomy.

(2) University mucky mucks: The plaintiffs asked for relief based on their disagreement with the medical care Lynn received.

Pro se plaintiffs: asked for relief based on forced medical treatment without consent and Lynn being held in four-point restraints for up to three days at a time, forcibly administered various medications including fentanyl and lorazepam, and [being] starved during his confinement. The plaintiffs allege that no court petition was filed for permission to treat Lynn without his consent as required by Arkansas law, and that UAMS employees lied to the plaintiffs and withheld medical documentation for sixteen months.

Well, maybe calling the bigwigs liars is not such a stretch. They certainly lied by omission.

(3) University mucky mucks: The Board maintains that the plaintiffs’ mere labeling of actions as “illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires” is insufficient to bypass sovereign immunity without specific factual allegations establishing that state actors acted outside statutory authority or violated constitutional commands.

Here are the factual allegations as they appear in the opposition, not the summary:

Taking the facts as alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint as true, the violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and illegal actions of the UALR employees that are condoned by the Board are egregious.

The following are samples of facts alleged and described with particularity in the complaint that show some of the ultra vires, wanton, capricious, bad faith, injurious, or arbitrary acts that the Board is defending:

No one petitioned a court for permission to treat Lynn without his consent. Page 13.

No petition was filed, and thus no judicial order issued pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 20-9-604. Page 13.

In the first 23 hours of confinement, Lynn was forced to ingest fentanyl, lorazepam, haloperidol, levetiracetam, dexmedetomidine, and olanzapine. Pages 14 – 15.

Lynn was held in four-point restraints for up to three days at a time, continuously, for a total of nine days. Much of that time his genitals were needlessly exposed. Cf. Page 18.

The defendants starved Lynn. Pages 38 – 39.

The Board has yet to address the lies told by its employees to the plaintiffs, including withholding the triage report and documentation of the administration of fentanyl for sixteen months. Page 53.

Defendants failed to preserve video that would show some of the alleged illegal conduct. Paragraphs 289 and 298.

The Board permits a policy prohibiting citizens from video recording UAMS personnel and equipment, even when those personnel are forcing an individual to remain in the hospital and engaging in repeated and continuous harmful or offensive contact with that individual. Pages 54 – 55.

The alleged conduct occurred over two years ago and the Board has made no effort to have UAMS Police Department or any prosecutorial agency investigate any of the alleged criminals. Pages 17, 40 – 41.

The plaintiffs’ 72 pages of well pleaded facts, taken as true – as must be on a motion to dismiss – contain ample allegations of conduct that falls within the exception to sovereign immunity.

*************** Please comment: Do you agree with the plaintiffs that they should have been allowed to video record the non-consensual treatment? What inference do you make from the fact that UAMS deleted the surveillance videos taken in the ER and in the hallways as Lynn tried to escape? Should the professor medical doctors in charge, who are each paid approximately $500,000 per year, be fired?

You be the judge.