The Ebola outbreak, which at first seemed like a distant fear, has become a reality in the United States, especially for the family of Thomas Eric Duncan. Duncan was the first individual to have died from Ebola on American soil. In the aftermath of his death, there has been speculation as to whether Duncan’s family will pursue a liability lawsuit against the hospital that treated Duncan. However, under Texas Law, it would be very difficult for Duncan’s family to succeed with any claims against the Hospital.

The Facts

On September 25, 2014 Thomas Eric Duncan went to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital where he was treated for a fever, abdominal pains, and vomiting–all symptoms of Ebola. Duncan was not tested for Ebola, and in fact, he was sent home with pain relievers and antibiotics. He was diagnosed with Ebola after returning to the hospital when his symptoms worsened. On October 8, 2014, Duncan died.

The Law

In 2003, Texas passed a tort reform that gave an extra layer of protection against civil liability lawsuits for Emergency Room doctors and nurses. Under this reform, plaintiffs must demonstrate “willful and wonton” conduct in order to prove negligence. This is one of the highest legal burdens to prove in the country.

This standard requires that the individual’s conduct creates “an extreme risk of danger” and that the individual has “actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved and chooses to proceed in conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.” Relating to this situation, to successfully prove negligence, Duncan’s family must show that the ER doctors not only created an extreme risk of danger, but that they actually knew about the danger, and continued to act in a manner that demonstrated their indifference toward Duncan. An important aspect of this question would be to determine what exactly the doctors and nurses knew about Duncan’s condition during his first visit.

Even if liability were proven, the tort reform established a $250,000 cap for non-economic damages in a healthcare lawsuit. So even if Duncan’s family were able to prove willful and wonton negligence, they would most likely be limited to $250,000 in damages.

The Reality

The harsh reality is that Duncan’s family probably has a slim chance at succeeding in a lawsuit against the hospital. On one hand, the 2003 tort reform has been a major success. It has caused medical malpractice claims to decrease by nearly two thirds between 2003 and 2011. On the other hand it begs the question, “at what cost?”

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Slim Chance of Legal Recourse for Family of First American Ebola Death appeared first on Law Street.

There are few topics as loaded in the American consciousness right now as the crime of rape. The Department of Education launched a massive investigation into the way that universities and colleges handle rape allegations, and hashtags like #YesAllWomen and #BeenRapedNeverReported have led to raw, powerful discussions on social media. However, one of the most immediate issues when it comes to dealing with rape in this nation is the complicated way in which we prosecute it. The Washington State Supreme Court just made a ruling that sheds light into the difficulty that comes with trying a rape case.

There are obviously a lot of moving parts when it comes to rape prosecution — social pressures, lack of reporting, and institutionalized victim-blaming to name just a few. All of these are essential factors that affect every step of a rape prosecution, and that needs to be kept in mind. But on the most basic level, prosecuting rape is complicated because of one simple question that we still haven’t figured out: who needs to prove what?

Think of a murder case. The prosecution has to prove that the defendant murdered the victim. Because of the nature of that crime, there’s no paranoia about false accusations the way there is with a rape case. Very few people argue about what the victim was wearing, or whether they invited someone over, or whether they were drinking matter at all. There’s no claim that the victim didn’t make it clear enough that they didn’t want to be murdered. There’s no real consent argument to make, except for possibly in a doctor-assisted suicide case, but those are rare outliers, not a normal consideration. We as a people know that being murdered is horrible, and the person who commits the murder is in the wrong. In order to make sure that the right person receives justice,however, affirmative defenses do exist — the most well-known probably being self-defense or insanity. This is not to say that murder cases are straightforward, but rather that the idea of “murder” and how to deal with it in a court is significantly more understood and accepted.

Compare that to a rape case. Like I said, there are all the other issues to contend with first — lack of investigation, lack of reporting, intense cultural shame. For all of those reasons, and many others, the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) estimates that for every 100 rapes, only 46 are reported to the police, and only nine of those even get a day in court. Those abysmal statistics aside, when the case makes it to court there are even more compounded issues.

One of the big problems that we can’t seem to move past is the mere concept that rape can involve an act that in another context is not a crime. It’s different than other violent crimes in that way; no one can make that argument about murder or robbery. The inability to grasp that concept is what has led to national paranoia over false accusations and a perverted fascination about the actions of the victim.

And that brings us to the prosecution of rape — consent is so hard to define and prove that it makes even the ability to prosecute rape messy. A recent case in Washington highlights the issue. The State Supreme Court overturned a ruling that placed the burden on the defendant to prove consent in a rape case. This was a 1975 decision that made it so that the prosecution didn’t have to focus so much on proving there was a lack of consent, but rather the defendant had to show that there was consent. This protected the victim from unfair and inappropriate scrutiny. As Justice Susan Owens put it in her dissent:

In 1975, the legislature took an important step toward justice for rape victims when it modified the laws to focus on the conduct of the perpetrator and not the victim…. Not only does the majority’s decision invalidate years of work undertaken to properly refocus our rape law, but it also has serious implications for victims of an already underreported type of crime.

A move toward providing the most just outcomes whenever possible should be applauded. But within the context of how difficult it already is to prove a rape case and the horrible way our society usually deals with rape, it’s tough to imagine that this decision truly did that. There’s a lot that needs to happen to ensure that our justice system fairly deals with rape and sexual assault, and to be fair a lot of it, such as working to remove the stigma and societal judgment about rape, isn’t even really possible for the judiciary to do. That being said, this step backward in Washington has a lot of potential to be dangerous. There’s no perfect answer yet for how to best prosecute rape, but Washington’s step backward can’t be it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Washington Courts Turn Back the Clock on Rape Prosecution appeared first on Law Street.

For the last couple of years, any discussion on sexual assault has required a discussion of the way colleges handle the issue, and the national consensus has been that they don’t handle it particularly well. There are dozens of universities currently under investigation by the Department of Education for their sexual assault policies. It is within this context that Harvard University, one of those schools under investigation, unveiled its new sexual misconduct policies.

The new policies have received significant backlash from parts of the Harvard community, particularly a group of Harvard Law professors. An open letter was released by the professors decrying the new policies.

They have many complaints with the policies, but overall they argue that the new policies are far too expansive and stack the deck against the accused. They claim that the policies do not allow due process or fairness. They are also concerned that only one office will be evaluating the complaints, and that that office cannot be guaranteed to be impartial because in addition to “trying” the cases, they are the ones who investigate the cases. Mainly they are worried about the fact the policies seemed to them, to be one-sided, saying:

Adopting rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated, rules which are starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents, and entirely inadequate to address the complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students.

The law professors also note the fact that many parts of the Harvard community were not consulted in the drafting of the new policies — including the faculty of the law school.

Concern has also been brought up over the fact that the policies changed the burden that needs to be met. There are varying degrees of burdens — “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the one we’re probably all the most familiar with from hearing it in the courtroom. There are lower burdens though, and Harvard’s sexual misconduct policies used to be based on one of them: “clear and persuasive.” The new rules have shifted the policies to an even lower burden: “preponderance of the evidence.” What preponderance means is really just more likely than not — more likely than not that someone broke a particular sexual misconduct policy.

To say I have incredibly mixed feelings about the entire thing would be an understatement. On one hand, I’m the kind of person who likes to believe in justice. Everyone does deserve a fair trial, no matter how heinous the crime or convincing the evidence.

That being said, the way in which sexual assault has been handled at some of our nation’s universities has been reprehensible at best. Policies do need to be changed, we’re all on the same page here. The real question that needs to be answered now is how?

On the other side of the country, California thinks maybe it has the answer. The state just instituted a new series of policies for its public schools that have been summed up under the phrase “yes means yes.” The law states:

Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.

This law has certainly received less backlash than Harvard’s, although some are still worried that it’s too harsh on those accused of sexual misconduct. The disconnect puts us in an interesting position — what’s too far and what’s not far enough? I don’t think there’s a perfect answer to that yet. There’s a whole treasure trove of imperfect answers out there: the policies and actions of the schools that are under investigation.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard’s New Sexual Assault Policies Spark Dissent From Professors appeared first on Law Street.