Court Says No 'Legal Right' to Force Use of Ivermectin
"We greatly empathize with the desire and conviction of appellants to explore every option to assist in the survival of their family member," the appeals court said. "But the rule of law cannot give way to benevolent inclination, regardless of the unpleasantness of the judicial duty.
January 28, 2022 at 11:02 AM
3 minute read
COVID-19A state appeals court Thursday said a family did not have a "legal right" to force Mayo Clinic Florida to administer the controversial drug ivermectin to try to keep alive a COVID-19 patient who was on a ventilator.
A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal released a 12-page opinion that detailed reasons that it upheld a decision by a Duval County circuit judge to reject efforts by the wife and son of patient Daniel Pisano to spur the hospital to use the drug.
The Tallahassee-based appeals court made the decision Jan. 14 but did not explain its reasons until Thursday. Jacksonville news organizations reported this week that Pisano, 71, has died.
"Appellants (the family members) frame the issue as whether Mr. Pisano has 'the right to choose life,' but that framing misses the legal dispute at issue," said the opinion by Judges Thomas Winokur, M. Kemmerly Thomas and Robert Long. "No one disputes Mr. Pisano's 'right to choose life.' The question before this court is not whether ivermectin or any other particular treatment is effective or reasonable. The answer to that question is quite obviously of critical importance to Mr. Pisano and his family. But the petition before us presents a legal question that is, while not unrelated, entirely different. The question here is not about whether Mr. Pisano (or his proxies) may 'choose life.' it is whether Mr. Pisano has identified a legal right to compel Mayo Clinic and its physicians to administer a treatment they do not wish to provide. The answer is no."
Pisano's wife, Claudia, and son, Christopher, went to court Dec. 29 to try to force Mayo to provide treatment that included administering ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug that has drawn widespread controversy about whether it should be given to COVID-19 patients. At the time, Pisano was in a medically induced coma and on a ventilator, according to Thursday's opinion.
The family sought a treatment protocol recommended by physician Ed Balbona, who was not able to treat Pisano at Mayo, which has what is known as a "closed staff." Also, Mayo staff members were not willing to administer the protocol recommended by Balbona.
"In particular, no one on Mayo Clinic's staff was willing to prescribe or administer ivermectin," Thursday's opinion said. "According to Mayo Clinic, there had been no showing that ivermectin is effective in treating late-stage COVID-19 patients like Mr. Pisano, it was not FDA approved to treat COVID-19, and no national or international organization recommends its use for COVID-19. Mayo Clinic prohibits staff from prescribing or administering medications for off-label use that are not supported by medical literature and approved through Mayo Clinic's approval procedures."
Duval County Circuit Judge Marianne Aho denied a request to compel the treatment, leading the family to appeal. But the opinion Thursday backed Aho's decision.
"We greatly empathize with the desire and conviction of appellants to explore every option to assist in the survival of their family member," the appeals court said. "But the rule of law cannot give way to benevolent inclination, regardless of the unpleasantness of the judicial duty. Our role here is to apply the law as written, absent personal sentiment or bias, and to consider only those arguments properly raised."
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Attorneys Battle PPP Loan-Forgiveness Woes for Hotel Clients
Returning to Court in a Post-COVID Era: The Pros and Cons of a Virtual Court System
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250