Tag Archive | Lawyers Lie about their lies

UAMS Lawyer Admits Some Lies; Creates Others

Mrs. Sherri Robinson, the $160,000 per year public attorney representing UAMS, filed what she called Amended and Substituted Answers to the Requests for Admissions.

I can’t make this up. So, with no more ado:

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS


REQUEST NUMBER 1: Admit that Sean Lynn gave no informed consent to be treated at UAMS.


[OLD] ANSWER: Denied. Consent is not required in Emergency Situations. Moreover, the person who was with Lynn in the emergency room gave consent for his admission and treatment at UAMS.

AMENDED AND SUBSTITUTED ANSWER: UAMS admits that Lynn’s written consent was not received upon his admission to UAMS; however, UAMS denies that it was required. Arkansas Code Annotated § 20-9-603 provides that “when an emergency exists and there is no one immediately available who is authorized, empowered to, or capable of consent,” then “consent is excused or implied at law” for a licensed physician to provide medical treatment. Lynn arrived at UAMS by ambulance, and EMS personnel notified medical providers that he had fallen from a ladder at a height of 30-35 feet. EMS advised UAMS that Lynn had experienced a loss of consciousness, and UAMS providers observed that Lynn was continuing to have confusion. As a result of the initial assessment, Lynn was admitted to the Emergency Department Trauma Service. No one was with Lynn in the emergency room, and he was not capable of giving consent at that time. Based on the information that UAMS had at that moment and the nature of Lynn injuries, an emergency under Ark. Code Ann. § 20-9-603 existed which excused the requirement for UAMS to obtain consent to treat him.

REQUEST NUMBER 15: Admit that UAMS staff administered sedatives to Sean Lynn against his will.

[OLD] ANSWER: Denied.

AMENDED AND SUBSTITUTED ANSWER: UAMS denies that it administered sedatives to Lynn against his will. UAMS admits that Lynn was given medications for the purpose of treating the symptoms he was experiencing as the result of his injuries, significantly, a traumatic brain injury. While some of those medications may have had a sedating effect, the treatment goal was to ease the symptoms Lynn was experiencing and to improve his overall condition.

REQUEST NUMBER 16: Admit that UAMS staff administered antipsychotic medications to Sean Lynn against his will.

[OLD] ANSWER: Denied.

AMENDED AND SUBSTITUTED ANSWER: UAMS denies that it administered antipsychotic medications to Lynn against his will. UAMS admits that Lynn was given medications for the purpose of treating the symptoms he was experiencing as the result of his injuries, significantly, a traumatic brain injury. While some of those medications may have been classified pharmacologically as antipsychotics, the treatment goal was to ease the symptoms Lynn was experiencing and to improve his overall condition.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.20: Admit that UAMS used Chemical Restraints on Sean Lynn.

[OLD] ANSWER: Denied.

AMDENDED AND SUBSTITUTED ANSWER: UAMS denies that it used a chemical restraint on Lynn. UAMS admits that Lynn was given medications for the purpose of treating the symptoms he was experiencing as the result of his injuries, significantly, a traumatic brain injury. While some of those medications, in other settings and at certain doses, may be used as a chemical restraint, the treatment goal in using the medications administered to Lynn was to ease the symptoms he was experiencing and to improve his overall condition.

Here, I’ll throw out a couple of snippets from cases from my 1L studies:

With respect to the failure to obtain consent, a patient has the burden of proving each of three essential propositions: First, that the Plaintiff sustained damages; second, that the medical care was provided without consent; third, that such failure was a proximate cause of damages to the Plaintiff. Millsap v. Williams, 2014 Ark. 469, 12, 449 S.W.3d 291, 298 (2014). “No” means “No”.

Flores v. Santiago, 986 N.E.2d 1216 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (patient of defendant eye doctor sufficiently alleged an inability to consent due to defendant repeatedly plying her with illegal drugs in order to facilitate sexual contact).

Here are the docs for download: