Comments for Your Nebraska Lawyers

Comment on Keating, O’Gara Files Suit Against Planned Parenthood and Abortion Doctor for Negligence and Battery by TERESEA

TERESEA — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:54:20 +0000

I love it that you posted this on the internet. Can you please just indicate if this was settled or a victory for the plaintiff or whatever you want to say about the case. Keep up the great work either way!

Comment on HIPAA Violation Does Not Mean You Can Sue by Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:56:25 +0000

The lawsuit should be for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

¶ 23 Barbuto and Sorensen’s relationship ended before Barbuto communicated ex parte with defense counsel. However, Barbuto’s tort-based duty of confidentiality continued. Further, because a duty existed, the trial court erred in dismissing Sorensen’s claim for negligence.

¶ 24 Sorensen’s invasion of privacy claim fails because Barbuto’s disclosure to defense counsel did not constitute a public disclosure, and his statements in the deposition fall under the judicial proceeding privilege. We conclude, however, that Barbuto’s actions meet the threshold to maintain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sorensen v. Barbuto 143 P.3d 295, 302 (Utah App.,2006)

Comment on HIPAA Violation Does Not Mean You Can Sue by Shannon

Shannon — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:03:05 +0000

What happens when your insurance company faxes your personal information, and medical information to someones house (instead of to the Dr)? My social security number, my husbands social security number, address, phone number, etc.

Comment on HIPAA Violation Does Not Mean You Can Sue by wendy

wendy — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:07:02 +0000

my employer published my health problem in our communicaton book for all of nursing staff to see. if this isn’t cause for action i dont know what is. besides the dr. is nebraska whos rights were clearly violated

Comment on HIPAA Violation Does Not Mean You Can Sue by This must be changed

This must be changed — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:51:50 +0000

This is despicable and insane.

This has to be changed. Doctors will not (and do not) abide by HIPAA if there’s no threat of litigation. Thanks, Congress, for once again wasting taxpayer resources and only doing a job part way.

Comment on Keating, O’Gara Case Filed on Behalf of Anaya Family Featured on National Radio as an Example of the “Creeping Control” of the State by Kelly K

Kelly K — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:22:49 +0000

I live in Nebraska and was horrified to hear about this incident. I keep playing in my mind the scene where the baby was ripped from his siblings arms and I cannot imagine what kind of damage that does to a family. With no warning, no respect for religion, no concern by the judge for the damage it is possible to do to a breastfeeding relationship by this sudden decrease in feedings… Horrified.

I hope that I will be able to attend the hearing (on Jan 25 at 1:30 in Room 1510 on the 1st Floor of the Capitol in Lincoln).

Comment on Keating O’Gara Nedved & Peter Defends Parental Rights in Newborn Blood Screening Case by Erin W.

Erin W. — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:26:04 +0000

My daughter’s PKU screening story – she was repeatedly slit with a razor blade when the “prick” didn’t draw enough blood. The proceedure took 28 minutes, with her screaming the entire time…finally on the fourth attempt with the razor blade I said that would be the last, they would have to stop, and I was told they would NOT stop until the proceedure was complete, at which time the nurse removed her from my arms and held her herself. I was 19 and on welfare, and really felt I had no recourse but to sit, sobbing, as I watched them cut my firstborn’s tiny foot to ribbons. This test is not necessarily the “trauma-free” experience they advertise it to be, and is performed with little or no information given to the parents before hand. Thank you for educating the public, and fighting for parents’ rights.

Comment on Keating O’Gara Nedved & Peter Defends Parental Rights in Newborn Blood Screening Case by Sam Smart

Sam Smart — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:53:15 +0000

Absolutely ridiculous. Both the lowly Deputy Attorney and the “Honorable” Judge should be charged with grievous injury to a newborn and gross neglect. Never mind you that these are both women who, you’d think, should know better.
Denying a mother the right the nurse her own child is more dangerous than any of the diseases they could possibly screen for. At worst, the child’s immune system is weakened, the mother/child bond is harmed and the child might turn out a heartless law-type.
It is my sincere hope that these people are removed from their positions.

Comment on Keating O’Gara Nedved & Peter Defends Parental Rights in Newborn Blood Screening Case by Jennifer C.

Jennifer C. — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:25:35 +0000

It is an atrocity that in a country that is supposed to be free, that this can happen. A woman has a choice to kill her child in the womb, but has no choice when it comes to a vitrually useless test. I have 3 sons, and unfortunately, was naive to this testing. It was done on all 3 of them, as was the vitamin K injection that I didn’t even know was done until I had my second child. It is insane that things our done to our children in a hospital setting without us even first being told about it. I have chosen to not immunize my 3 sons, not for religious reasons, but for the belief that that these are more injurious to children that the risk of the disease for which they allegedly protect them against. When I was pregnant with my first son, I was under the assumption that vaccines were mandatory. It wasn’t until I did my research that I learned otherwise. However, the medical industry has done a good job of convincing parents that they are neccessary. The majority of parents follow doctors blindly, as if they are infallable. They are told of all the benefits, but the horrific results are quickly gone over, without any detail. Sadly, parents aren’t given the option that they don’t have to do this to their kids. It just seems ironic that in the land of the free, these sorts of things are being done to our children, and that parents get backed into corners because of the threat of having their kids taken from them.

On another note, I was always under the impression that foster care was supposed to protect children from dangerous situations. Hardly, a woman who didn’t want to subject her child to pain, and who nurses him 9 times a day constitutes a danger. It seems as though Judge Crnkovich, HHS, and the prosecutors abused the system by holding little Joel hostage in the foster care system until the blood was taken. It sickens me that something like this has happened in this country. But then again, it wouldn’t be the first time I read about Judge Crnkovich having poor judgement. This is the same judge who has placed children back into some pretty bad situations. Ironic! And how many times have we read about dead kids because of HHS returning children to volatile situations or not doing the proper screening, or “overlooking” red flags. SCARY!

Comment on Keating O’Gara Nedved & Peter Defends Parental Rights in Newborn Blood Screening Case by Natasia Raven

Natasia Raven — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:21:45 +0000

I cannot believe that a judge would be so cruel and heartless as to deny a mother her right to breastfeed her new baby. This whole situation is absolutely ridiculous, and I hope that it will be settled soon.