Gay woman fights over hospital visitation rights in Miami court

Posted on Fri, Feb. 06, 2009
Gay woman fights over hospital visitation rights in Miami court
BY LAURA FIGUEROA
As her partner of 17 years slipped into a coma, Janice Langbehn pleaded with doctors and anyone who would listen to let her into the woman's hospital room.

Eight anguishing hours passed before Langbehn would be allowed into Jackson Memorial Hospital's Ryder Trauma Center. By then, she could only say her final farewell as a priest performed the last rites on 39-year-old Lisa Marie Pond.

Jackson staffers advised Langbehn that she could not see Pond earlier because the hospital's visitation policy in cases of emergency was limited to immediate family and spouses -- not partners. In Florida, same-sex marriages or partnerships are not recognized. On Friday, two years after her partner's death, Langbehn and her attorneys were in federal court, claiming emotional distress and negligence in a suit they filed last June.

Jackson attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds that the hospital has no obligation to allow patients' visitors.

Following a hearing lasting more than an hour Friday, U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan said he would try to decide soon whether the case could proceed to trial. He gave no specific date.

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

The suit is winding its way through federal court only months after voters approved the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The statewide amendment garnered more than 62 percent of voters -- surpassing the 60 percent threshold required for ratification.

Supporters of Florida's Amendment 2 -- mostly conservatives and Christian groups -- argued it was needed to protect families and the traditional institution of marriage by promoting homes with a mom and a dad.

Opponents argued that gay and straight, unmarried Floridians risked losing domestic partner benefits, such as health insurance, hospital visitation rights and the ability to make end-of-life decisions.

NO CONSULTATION

At Friday's hearing, Langbehn's lawyers argued the case should be tried because Langbehn had the proper documentation to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner, and was not consulted about Pond's condition for hours despite seeking answers every 20 minutes.

''This is not just about same-sex couples,'' said attorney Donald Hayden, who is also representing the Langbehn family. ``This is about protecting the legal access that a parent has to see a child, or an essential loved ones right to be aware of what is going on with their loved one.''

Attorneys for Jackson argued that hospital staff did not purposely try to harm the family or cause emotional stress.

''There's just not enough there to say that these doctors intentionally tried to cause distress,'' attorney Andrew Boese told the judge.

Pond's medical problems began in February 2007 when she, Langbehn and their three adopted children were aboard a cruise ship docked in Miami. The Washington state couple and their children were on vacation.

Pond suddenly collapsed from a heart attack and was rushed to the trauma center.

Though Langbehn had documents declaring her Pond's legal guardian and giving her the medical ''power of attorney,'' Jackson officials refused to recognize her or the kids as family.

Langbehn, who still lives in Washington, was not available for comment Friday, but in a 2007 interview with The Miami Herald she said, ``Any family should have the right to hold their loved one's hand in the last moments of life, and we were denied that.''

Langbehn's supporters are livid about the hospital's actions.

''We are here to ensure that families get the respect they deserve at Jackson Memorial Hospital and to prevent Janice's tragedy from happening to anyone else,'' said Beth Littrell, an attorney for Lambda Legal, a national group that fights for the civil rights of gays. ``This family deserves to have its day in court.''

Markwes wrote:Legally, she has no case against the hospital. If their policy is family only, and she is not legally considered family, then they have the right to refuse her entry. On a human level though, I disagree with their decision. It makes them look bad and now I'm sure they regret it.

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:Legally, she has no case against the hospital. If their policy is family only, and she is not legally considered family, then they have the right to refuse her entry. On a human level though, I disagree with their decision. It makes them look bad and now I'm sure they regret it.

That is why the law needs to be changed. I wish one of the right wingers here would explain to me how this is a good thing?

I'll wait ...

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:Legally, she has no case against the hospital. If their policy is family only, and she is not legally considered family, then they have the right to refuse her entry. On a human level though, I disagree with their decision. It makes them look bad and now I'm sure they regret it.

That is why the law needs to be changed. I wish one of the right wingers here would explain to me how this is a good thing?

I'll wait ...

Vis wrote:??? The story clearly states that she DID have the legal documents which granted her legal guardianship and medical power of attorney but it's interesting that a few of you feel the hospital was in their rights to deny visitation and a chance for this woman and their three children to say goodbye. If the hospital is allowed to refuse to acknowledge these legal contracts then what's to stop them from allowing any of you to visit you spouses or children.

Scooby01_98 wrote:Marriage license should all be civil unions out of the clerks office. If you want one that says marriage license....get your souvenir copy from your minister.

Markwes wrote:

Bottom line - as Meta said, this is not a gay rights issue as some are trying to make it out to be. It would be different if she had been denied because of her sexual orientation. But that's not the case.

meta4 wrote:The O.R. window was through a set of doors about 20 feet away - within eyesight. I ask if someone can show me to the window.

"let me check to see if someone is available"

30 minutes later my son was born. I had missed it. One nurse gave an excuse that because the window was 5 feet behind the OR area doors, I had to be chaperoned to stand in front of that window.

That's the kind of thing a person NEVER forgets. IMO, bad call by lazy nurses that night.

Scooby01_98 wrote:Marriage license should all be civil unions out of the clerks office. If you want one that says marriage license....get your souvenir copy from your minister.

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Bottom line - as Meta said, this is not a gay rights issue as some are trying to make it out to be. It would be different if she had been denied because of her sexual orientation. But that's not the case.

Sure this is about money, the family is trying to be compensated for their grief but the real underlaying issue IS sexual orientation. If as Scooby put it a couples were treated the same under the law then this would not have been an issue. This couple had three kids they were raising as a family but the law in Florida says they are not a family. Bullshit ... a law does not make a family, love does.

LTRT wrote:

Tough break, dude...

I probably would've taken my chance on escorting myself thru the doors while the lazy nurses were having their girl talk.

meta4 wrote:

LTRT wrote:

meta4 wrote:The O.R. window was through a set of doors about 20 feet away - within eyesight. I ask if someone can show me to the window.

"let me check to see if someone is available"

30 minutes later my son was born. I had missed it. One nurse gave an excuse that because the window was 5 feet behind the OR area doors, I had to be chaperoned to stand in front of that window.

That's the kind of thing a person NEVER forgets. IMO, bad call by lazy nurses that night.

Tough break, dude...

I probably would've taken my chance on escorting myself thru the doors while the lazy nurses were having their girl talk.

Yep, tough break. That's the conclusion that I had reached. Although I was irate at the time, I'm glad I wasn't escorted to a squad car that morning. What a story that would have made for my son.

meta4 wrote:

Bman wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Bottom line - as Meta said, this is not a gay rights issue as some are trying to make it out to be. It would be different if she had been denied because of her sexual orientation. But that's not the case.

Sure this is about money, the family is trying to be compensated for their grief but the real underlaying issue IS sexual orientation. If as Scooby put it a couples were treated the same under the law then this would not have been an issue. This couple had three kids they were raising as a family but the law in Florida says they are not a family. Bullshit ... a law does not make a family, love does.

As far as I can see, there is absolutely no "sexual orientation" foundation for this law suit. Bman, "IF" is not legal, "IF" doesn't exist and it never has. Right now, technically, the law rules because they had no civil union.

Would the same woman make the same lawsuit before her partner died? That's about as Iffy as you can get - no conditions existed that would make this an issue at that time.

Bman wrote:That is the exact law that I think needs to be changed ... if this couple had been guaranteed the same and equal rights under the constitution and were able to be joined in a civil union this would not have happened. You and your wife had the option to marry or not, this couple did not. They lived together for years, attempted to present themselves as a family, raised kids together but when the one partner was dying it was tough shit, you can't be in there. The only reason why people oppose civil unions is out of hate ... I don't get it. Why do people care who someone loves monogamously? Amazing ..

Markwes wrote:

Bman wrote:That is the exact law that I think needs to be changed ... if this couple had been guaranteed the same and equal rights under the constitution and were able to be joined in a civil union this would not have happened. You and your wife had the option to marry or not, this couple did not. They lived together for years, attempted to present themselves as a family, raised kids together but when the one partner was dying it was tough shit, you can't be in there. The only reason why people oppose civil unions is out of hate ... I don't get it. Why do people care who someone loves monogamously? Amazing ..

Bman, we all know your position on civil unions and it's been discussed ad nauseum. Has anyone here ever said that a married couple doesn't receive any more benefit than a gay couple because of their "family" status? Why does it matter that a man and woman have a "choice" to get married? You're assuming that the couple involved in this story would have gotten married if it was legal. Maybe so, maybe not.

And you ignore the fact that this woman is suing the hospital; she's not making any attempt to change the law. I'm pretty sure the hospital didn't come up with this policy by sitting around saying "How can we screw with the gay community?". Once again, it's not about gay rights. This could have happened with a hetero couple, a father and step-child yet to be adopted, etc.