Judge Jordan's Ruling Leads to Change in Hospital Visitation Rights

We analyzed Judge Jordan's ruling last year in the Langbehn/Jackson Memorial gay visitation dispute here.

While I wasn't exactly thrilled with the outcome, I found his ruling sensitive, rational, and fair given the messed up state of Florida's tort jurisprudence.

Now we see all the advocacy and publicity has paid off (depending on your point of view):

Gay rights advocates said the rules change was inspired by one of those cases involving a same-sex couple, Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond, who were profiled in The New York Times last year. After Ms. Pond was stricken with a fatal brain aneurysm, Ms. Langbehn was denied visiting rights in 2007 by a Florida hospital. Although Ms. Langbehn had power of attorney and she and Ms. Pond were parents to four children they had adopted, the hospital refused for eight hours to allow her and the children to see Ms. Pond, her partner for 18 years. Ms. Pond died as Ms. Langbehn tried in vain to get to her side.

Ms. Langbehn, represented by Lambda Legal, a legal advocacy organization, brought suit against the hospital, Jackson Memorial in Miami, but lost. On Thursday night, Mr. Obama called her from Air Force One to say that he had been moved by her case.

“I was so humbled that he would know Lisa’s name and know our story,” Ms. Langbehn said in a telephone interview. “He apologized for how we were treated. For the last three years, that’s what I’ve been asking the hospital to do. Even now, three years later, they still refuse to apologize to the children and I for the fact that Lisa died alone.”

Glad to see that hopey-changey thing working out for ya' at least a little bit.

Who's That Man?

You remember Jackson Memorial, horribly mismanaged, misstating revenues by several hundred million, firing 900 employees -- in other words the perfect hospital for sunny South Florida.....

Well it looks like they'll have slightly more on their plate, as the 11th has reversed Judge Lenard's summary judgment involving their fund-raising arm Jackson Memorial Foundation in a vigorously disputed age-discrimination suit.

The opinion is pretty straightforward, though there was this odd footnote:

We deny Mora’s request that this case be reassigned to a different judge on remand. Reassignment is unnecessary.

Hey, what's up with that?

Not sure, but the proceedings below did get a little heated at times.

Let's see, first you had that motion for sanctions JMF filed against plaintiff's counsel over a non-confidential deposition transcript provided to the South Florida Business Journal which somehow allegedly "tainted the jury pool."

That's right -- the SFBJ (which I like a lot, don't get me wrong, but it's not exactly at flatbread or pesto wrap or even panini-like levels of popularity).

Then you have the plaintiff filing a motion to compel disclosure of an unnamed mystery JMF "client-attorney," possibly venerable GT lawyer and immediate past JMF chair Alan T. Dimond?

BTW, Magistrate Judge Garber firmly and swiftly denied the sanctions motion (and ordered two sealed documents filed in relation thereto to be destroyed), and Judge Lenard denied the mystery man disclosure motion as moot in light of her granting the now-reversed SJ.

(So is it still moot?)

Better hurry and get that judgment, but either way don't forget to play nice, you knuckleheads!