ILNews

7th Circuit won't stay ruling, despite likely SCOTUS appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals won’t stay its ruling that allows an independent state agency access to records about mentally ill inmates’ treatment, even though the Indiana government agency being sued is appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In a four-page order issued Wednesday in the case of Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, et al., No. 08-3183, Judge David F. Hamilton explained why the full appellate court wouldn’t backtrack from its April 22 ruling on the case out of the Southern District of Indiana.

In April, Judge Hamilton wrote a 63-page decision for an en banc court that found Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services has the right to sue and its case shouldn’t be dismissed. Affirming U.S. Judge Larry McKinney’s decision, the appeals court held the 11th Amendment does not bar plaintiff IPAS from seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against state officials because the federal Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 provides that cause of action, and the plaintiff is entitled to access peer review records of treatment of covered mentally ill patients.

IPAS, a state-created agency aimed at protecting and advocating for the rights of those with disabilities, filed a lawsuit in late 2006 against Family and Social Services Administration, LaRue Carter Memorial Hospital, and several state officials in order to gain records on a mentally disabled adult patient who died while at LaRue Carter to find out if she was a victim of abuse. Judge McKinney had decided the defendants had to hand over the records because the victim was an adult and her parents weren't appointed her legal guardians, but FSSA argued that releasing the records would violate the victim's parents' privacy.

The 7th Circuit mandated that IPAS have access to the records, but the defendants in early May filed a motion to stay that mandate while it appealed to the nation’s highest court.

Standing by the 7th Circuit’s previous ruling, Judge Hamilton said FSSA’s plan to seek certiorari before the SCOTUS isn’t enough to stay the order and that it won’t be irreparably harmed by the access. The judges en banc agreed to deny the motion, with Judge Hamilton writing that there is no Circuit split nationally on two of the three issues being appealed – the plaintiff’s right to sue under the act and access to peer review records. Another certiorari request is pending on a 4th Circuit case involving the 11th Amendment issue, the court noted.

“In sum, the balance weighs against granting a stay of the mandate even if there was a reasonable possibility that certiorari may be granted,” Judge Hamilton wrote. “The disclosure of information would be to an independent government agency with its own legal obligations to maintain the confidentiality of the documents in question. The plaintiffs had to wait nearly four years after Patient 1’s death for access to the peer review documents, stymying its ability to effectively protect and advocate on behalf of the other individuals with mental illness. There will be no invasion of Patient 1’s privacy, for Patient 1 is deceased. Whatever interests the care giving entities or doctors and other individual care givers might have in the privacy of information about their treatment of Patient 1 will be adequately protected by the plaintiff’s own legal obligations of confidentiality.”

The court determined it would be adequate to issue an order granting plaintiff access to the records, but reserving the right to order the plaintiff to return all copies and derivative notes in case justices grant cert and reverse the 7th Circuit ruling.

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office is representing FSSA, and while it intends to file an appeal with the SCOTUS, the appellate court docket shows that hasn’t been done yet. Attorney General spokesman Bryan Corbin said the office on Thursday filed in the Supreme Court a 103-page application for immediate recall and stay of mandate, pending certiorari to the high court.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  2. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  3. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  4. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  5. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

ADVERTISEMENT