Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2019-12-30 Support historic legal challenge to routine infant circumcision paid by Medicaid

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by z726 View Post
    Wasn't Geisheker the one who took the case for William Stowell 20 years ago?
    David Llewellyn was the attorney. https://nypost.com/2000/12/23/servic...-cut-at-birth/

    John Geisheker may have been recruited as an expert.
    -Ron Low
    [email protected]
    847 414-1692 Chicago

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by admin View Post
      David Llewellyn was the attorney. https://nypost.com/2000/12/23/servic...-cut-at-birth/

      John Geisheker may have been recruited as an expert.
      Ah, thanks. It's been a while since that was in the news.

      Comment


      • #18
        Apparently their initial court appearance was August 31st. The latest update posted on the GoFundMe page, from September 12th, shows their upcoming legal proceedings:

        Thanks for your support! Here is the schedule.


        10/9 The State opposes our request for a preliminary injunction and moves to dismiss the case.
        11/13 We reply in support of our preliminary injunction and oppose their motion to dismiss. We submit an amicus brief from American attorneys and doctors and another from European doctors.
        12/4 The State responds to our opposition to their motion to dismiss.
        12/18 Hearing on motions before a judge to decide on preliminary injunction and motion to dismiss.

        Comment


        • #19
          Yet another brief update on the GoFundMe page, dated October 23:

          The State requested and was granted a 14 day extension. The hearing is now scheduled for Jan. 5, 2021.

          Comment


          • #20
            JANUARY 14, 2021
            by Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., Organizer
            Our court hearing for Jan. 19 is postponed by the court to be on Feb. 18. We have no choice and are disappointed about the wait. We will be ready!

            --

            Also i hit them with some money through their GoFundMe
            Last edited by Frizzen; 02-10-2021, 12:36 PM.
            Saying someone is "Unmutilated" is like saying "Unsweet Tea". So you mean it's just Tea, in its natural state, that nobody has screwed up? It can't be Un- anything

            Comment


            • #21
              Here's an update from the GoFundMe page, posted on March 8th. Goldman is still waiting for a response to the February 18th hearing, but he summarizes what could come next:

              Our circumcision case against Massachusetts Medicaid (MassHealth) is pending the response from the judge. This case included our motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to dismiss by MassHealth. The judge heard oral argument on these two motions on Feb. 18. These two motions are expected to be decided in the judge's response.

              The preliminary injunction decides what happens in the intervening period between the time of its issuance and when the factual hearing is to decide what happens permanently. If our motion is accepted, it means that MassHealth would be directed by the court to immediately stop paying for elective, non-therapeutic male infant circumcisions. Then there would be a wait of some months for a hearing on the merits of the case. It would be very likely that we would win the case if our motion for preliminary injunction is accepted. If our motion for preliminary injunction is rejected, then we also wait for a hearing on the merits of the case.

              The decision on the motion to dismiss is akin to the court acting as a gatekeeper for whether they even will allow the case to be heard on the merits; if the motion to dismiss is granted, it means we never get to make our arguments about whether it is proper for Medicaid to continue paying for circumcisions (unless we appeal the court's decision), whereas if the motion to dismiss is denied, the court will grant a full hearing to the factual question of whether circumcision is necessary such that MassHealth should pay for it through their Medicaid program.

              Thanks for your support!

              Comment


              • #22
                Update, as of April 2nd: the motion to dismiss was denied, so the lawsuit continues... slowly.

                April 2, 2021 by Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., Organizer
                We have great news to report, an interim victory in this case! After reading briefs and hearing oral argument, the Judge in Suffolk Superior Court denied MassHealth's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, so as of now, we have the right to proceed with it.

                More specifically, the judge ruled that we can move forward based on our claims that MassHealth is violating state law, but not on our claims that it is violating federal law. That does not affect our lawsuit, but it could affect later lawsuits in other states. We think that part of his decision is clearly erroneous.

                The case has been referred to the Appeals Court which allows the Judge to have his decision reviewed by the Appeals Court before the case proceeds. They have received the Judge's opinion and both sides will likely have an opportunity to submit their arguments. This may take a couple of months.

                If the Appeals Court affirms the Judge's ruling, we will proceed (back down at the lower court) with the case. This will involve a fact intensive inquiry including depositions and interrogatories, which are written requests for answers and documents. It is unlikely that the Appeals Court would rule against us.

                Comment

                Working...
                X