• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Wednesday, January 29, 1997

LAWSUIT:

Patients allege researchers did not reveal consequences of studyBy Gil Hopenstand

Daily Bruin Staff

With the trial date quickly approaching, a case alleging negligence by UCLA's Neuropsychiatric Hospital was expanded yesterday to include allegations of federal civil rights violations.

State Superior Court Judge David Perez yesterday granted the request filed by former participants in a university research study on schizophrenia.

The March 3 trial will determine whether researchers' alleged failure to disclose study protocol and known dangers ­ and the alleged subsequent cover-up ­ constitute a deprivation of patients' federally protected civil rights.

This is the first time such an argument will be used in the state of California.

"It's very significant. As far as we know, there is only one other case in the country that focuses on this as a civil right violation, and that is in Cincinnati," said Lee Potts, one of the patients' attorneys. "No one has ever sued the university on that theory. This is new area that is being explored."

The case involves a federally-funded UCLA schizophrenia study begun more than 10 years ago to conclude how and why patients relapse.

University filed court documents state that "this research study mirrored the everyday treatment of schizophrenics, but in a controlled setting."

"Patients were prescribed an acceptable neuroleptic medication to stabilize their schizophrenia, and then the medication was withdrawn after stabilization," the documents claimed. "The goal was to help clinicians better determine the extent to which patients needed to be on these toxic medications."

The patients, however, contend that they were not properly notified of the study's procedures or consequences. As such, they are now claiming doctor negligence and that their "federal rights to bodily integrity" were violated.

"The evidence ... demonstrates that the defendants acted willfully, maliciously and with conscious disregard of plaintiffs' rights under the laws of California and the United States," the patients' motion states.

Though the case is limited to former schizophrenia research patients Greg Allers and Antonio Lamadrid, they are not the only ones to complain about treatment at the Neuropsychiatric Hospital.

In the hospital's accreditation review in August 1995, family members of several hospital patients ­ some of whom are deceased after receiving care at the hospital ­ spoke before the board which regulates the institution's operating license alleging negligence and impropriety.

Despite their claims, the hospital still holds full accreditation and has been repeatedly named the best psychiatric hospital in the western United States by U.S. News and World Report.

But in the Allers and Lamadrid case, Perez yesterday also allowed the patients to seek monetary damages from the individual defendants in the trial.

The next course of action is examining financial records of those individuals who may be held financially accountable for potential damages.

Potts explained that damages "are based on the worth of the defendants," adding that they cannot calculate how much they will seek "until we know what they're worth."

"It's supposed to hurt but not destroy" the defendants, Potts added.

The two sides will narrow down the current list of 12 defendants to a mere handful of names at a Feb. 28 hearing to again be heard by Perez.

At the hearing, Perez released the University of California Board of Regents from any potential monetary damages because they are an arm of the state of California, which is immune from such liability.

University attorneys claimed that yesterday's motions were untimely, coming too close to the trial's start. But Perez agreed with the patients' attorney Elizabeth Mann, who argued that it took time to adequately scour over the "literally hundreds and hundred of documents."

"(A previous judge) told us not to come back without full and sufficient evidence," Mann argued before Perez. "It took a longtime to get those documents."

The university's attorneys could not be reached for comment yesterday afternoon.

Comments

Post a comment