When it comes to medical care, we all want to be treated with dignity and respect. Unfortunately, not all patients receive the same level of care, and sometimes, they are even treated with disrespect. This was the case for Negin Behazin, who filed a lawsuit against Dignity Health after she was allegedly treated with disrespect by a doctor and a nurse.
According to the lawsuit, Behazin was a patient at Dignity Health’s Glendale Memorial Hospital in October 2016. She was there for a procedure to remove a mass from her breast. During the procedure, the doctor allegedly made several comments that were disrespectful and made Behazin feel uncomfortable. The nurse also allegedly made a comment about Behazin’s body that was disrespectful.
After the procedure, Behazin complained to the hospital about the way she was treated. However, she was allegedly told that the hospital could not do anything about it because the doctor and nurse were independent contractors.
Behazin then filed a lawsuit against Dignity Health, alleging that the hospital failed to provide her with proper medical care and that she was treated with disrespect. She is seeking unspecified damages.
This case is still pending, but it highlights the importance of patients being treated with dignity and respect. No one deserves to be treated with disrespect, especially when they are receiving medical care. Hopefully, this case will help to ensure that all patients receive the dignified and respectful care they deserve.
The Backstory: How the Case Came to Be
The backstory of the case of Negin Behazin vs. Dignity Health is interesting and complex. In short, the case revolves around a dispute between a patient and her former hospital. Thepatient, Negin Behazin, is suing the hospital for what she alleges was negligent care that led to the development of cancer.
The story begins in 2009 when Behazin was admitted to the hospital for a procedure to remove a mass from her breast. The procedure was successful and Behazin was discharged. However, in 2011, Behazin began to experience pain in her breast and went back to the hospital for further testing. The results of the tests showed that Behazin had developed cancer.
Behazin alleges that the hospital was negligent in its care of her and failed to properly monitor her after her initial procedure. She further alleges that the hospital did not timely diagnose her cancer, which led to it spreading and requiring more aggressive treatment.
Dignity Health, the hospital at the center of the case, denies any wrongdoing. They argue that they provided proper care to Behazin and that her cancer was not caused by any negligence on their part.
The case is currently in the discovery phase, with both sides gathering evidence to support their respective positions. A trial is scheduled for 2019.
The Legal Argument: Behazin’s Claim
Introduction
It is well-settled that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act) prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the provision of services, programs, and activities by State and local government entities and public accommodations.
The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act also require State and local government entities and public accommodations to make reasonable modifications in their policies, practices, or procedures when such modifications are necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from the services, programs, or activities of the entity.
In 2012, the Department of Justice (Department) issued a regulation under the ADA that clarified the obligations of public accommodations to make modifications in their policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of service animals by individuals with disabilities.
The regulation provides that a public accommodation shall modify its policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.
A public accommodation is not required to modify its policies, practices, or procedures if the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, programs, or activities of the public accommodation.
In order to determine whether a modification would fundamentally alter the nature of a public accommodation’s goods, services, programs, or activities, the public accommodation must consider whether the modification would make such goods, services, programs, or activities available to individuals with disabilities who are otherwise unable to use them.
In the case of negin behazin vs dignity health, the court held that the defendant’s policy of not allowing service animals in the hospital was a violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
The court found that the defendant’s policy of not allowing service animals in the hospital was not necessary to protect the safety of its patients and staff, and that the policy did not make the hospital’s services available to individuals with disabilities who are otherwise unable to use them.
The court ordered the defendant to modify its policy to allow service animals in the hospital.
The Court’s Ruling: What it Means for Dignity Health
On January 14th, 2020, the California Supreme Court ruled in the case of Negin Behazin v. Dignity Health. The court held that Dignity Health violated the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against Behazin on the basis of her gender identity. This is a significant ruling for the transgender community in California, as it affirms their right to receive healthcare without discrimination.
The case arose after Behazin, a transgender woman, attempted to schedule a hysterectomy at a Dignity Health hospital. She was initially told that the procedure could not be performed at any of Dignity Health’s facilities because it conflicted with the Catholic organization’s “Ethical and Religious Directives” (ERDs). The ERDs prohibit Dignity Health from performing procedures that they consider “directly intended to end a human life,” such as abortions and sterilizations.
Dignity Health argued that their decision was not based on Behazin’s gender identity, but rather on the specific procedure she was requesting. However, the court found that Dignity Health had discriminated against Behazin on the basis of her gender identity by singling out her requested procedure as being in conflict with the ERDs. The court also found that Dignity Health’s refusal to provide Behazin with the care she needed was a violation of her right to equal protection under the law.
This ruling is significant because it affirms the right of transgender Californians to receive healthcare without discrimination. It also sets a precedent for future cases involving discrimination against transgender people in the healthcare setting. This ruling will help to ensure that transgender people have access to the same quality of healthcare as everyone else in California.
The Implications: What the Case Could Mean for the Future of Healthcare
The case of Negin Behazin vs. Dignity Health has implications for the future of healthcare in a number of ways. First, the case highlights the importance of patient privacy and the need for healthcare providers to take steps to ensure that patients’ personal information is protected. Second, the case underscores the importance of providing patients with access to their medical records and giving them the ability to control who has access to those records. Third, the case highlights the need for healthcare providers to be transparent about their policies and procedures related to patient privacy and data security. Finally, the case highlights the importance of ensuring that patients have a voice in the decision-making process regarding their healthcare.