Hialeah Abortion Clinic Fights State Fine
The case is linked, at least in part, to a 2015 state law that requires women to receive information from doctors and then wait at least 24 hours before having abortions.
August 04, 2022 at 11:55 AM
3 minute read
State and Local Government
A South Florida abortion clinic is fighting an attempt by state regulators to impose a $41,000 fine over allegations that the clinic did not show that it provided required information to women at least 24 hours before abortions.
The Hialeah clinic, A GYN Diagnostic Center, is challenging the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration in the state Division of Administrative hearings, according to documents filed Monday. The case emerged as the agency also faces an administrative challenge to an attempt to revoke the license of a Pensacola abortion clinic.
The Hialeah case is linked, at least in part, to a 2015 state law that requires women to receive information from doctors and then wait at least 24 hours before having abortions. After years of battles about the constitutionality of the law, a Leon County circuit judge upheld the waiting-period requirement in April.
The Agency for Health Care Administration, which regulates abortion clinics, alleged that it reviewed records at the Hialeah facility on May 17 and could not find documentation that 41 patients had received the required information. It said it would fine the clinic $1,000 for each of the patients.
"The documentation was required to establish that the physician who was to perform the procedure or the referring physician, had at a minimum, orally, while physically present in the room, and at least 24 hours before the procedure informed the patient of the risks set out in (state law)." the agency's administrative complaint said. "Absent such documentation, there was no record that the clinic obtained each patient's informed consent to the procedure."
But the clinic fired back in a legal document, disputing the allegations and accusing the agency of "uncleaned hands" in the case.
"Petitioner (the agency) knew or should have known that respondent (the clinic) and its treating physicians gave notice to each patient pursuant (to state law)," the document said. "Respondent gave the two forms (signed by each patient) … to petitioner, showing compliance with the statute."
The Hialeah and Pensacola cases come amid a backdrop of legal and political battles across the country about abortion issues. As an example, Florida lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis this year approved a measure to prevent abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, drawing constitutional challenges that remain pending.
In the Pensacola case filed last week at the Division of Administrative Hearings, the Agency for Health Care Administration is seeking to revoke the license of Integrity Medical Care, LLC, which does business as American Family Planning, and impose a $343,200 fine.
The agency has focused, in part, on complications suffered by two women who went to the Pensacola facility in March and May for second-trimester abortions. It alleged that physicians and staff did not comply with the proper standard of care.
But in a July 12 document filed at the agency, an attorney for the clinic disputed the allegations, writing that the clinic "provided care to patients in accordance with the standard of care" and that its complication rate is lower than the national average. The case has been assigned to Judge W. David Watkins.
The agency in May issued an emergency suspension of the Pensacola clinic's license. The clinic has challenged that move at the 1st District Court of Appeal.
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 AllMiami Firm Reaches $1.9M Settlement for Protester's Injuries, Pursues Class Action for Others
COVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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