Connecticut woman denied award in deceased partner’s malpractice suit

[WillParkinson]

Connecticut woman denied award in deceased partner’s malpractice suit

A Connecticut woman claims she was unfairly excluded from the medical malpractice suit of her now deceased wife.

A Connecticut judge ruled that Charlotte Stacey would not be able to serve as the plaintiff in Margaret Muerller’s case because their marriage was not legally established until after the alleged malpractice took place, CTPost.com reported.

“I don’t think its right,” said Stacey. “We were together the entire time.”

The couple had been together for 21 years prior to filing the suit in July 2006. They were among the first same-sex couples to join in a civil union on November 12, 2005.

Mueller passed away last January following complications due to a series of incorrect cancer treatments. According to her attorney Joshua Koskoff, Mueller was diagnosed with PMP, a cancer of the appendix, but was mistakenly treated for ovarian cancer.

http://www.365gay.com/news/connecticut-woman-denied-award-in-deceased-partner%e2%80%99s-malpractice-suit/

[racaulk]

1. Yet another case of why marriage is NOT "just a word."

Here is a case where two people played by the rules set forth in the legal framework that they were given, and the surviving partner is being screwed because of the inequalities in that law. This couple was covered under a legal civil union in that state at the time of the malpractice, but because the court now looks back and says "well, it wasn't a marriage," then the surviving spouse shouldn't have a voice in the proceedings at all. I would also like to point out this statement in the article (emphasis mine):

"On Friday, a Superior Court awarded $2.45 million to Mueller’s estate. Stacey, who was married to Mueller at the time of her death, will have to go to court to determine if she will be able to collect the award."

If the surviving spouse were a man, he would have full protection under the law, this would be a non-issue, and no one would think twice about it. The claim to his wife's estate would be automatic. But because the surviving spouse is female, her eligibility to share in her wife's estate has to be determined in a court of law.

Civil.

Unions.

Aren't.

Enough.

:argh:

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. This is not about civil unions v marriage -

it is about corporations v people.

The judge made the ruling that the survivor cannot be the plaintiff because they were not legally married at the time of the initiation of the events - that their union came AFTER the event. Just as a marriage would have come after the event.

If the same case with a hetero couple occurred it would have gotten the same ruling - they were not a legal couple at the time of the event, therefore the survivor cannot file as the plaintiff.

[racaulk]

3. I agree with you to an extent.

I did misread the article. I read that the judge denied the legality of their partnership at the time the suit was filed, not at the time the malpractice took place. The latter was true, not the former. They were of course a legal couple at the time the suit was filed, which is why my reading of those remarks irked me. Thank you for providing that clarification.

However, if I understand the sequence of events correctly, this couple was together for 17 to 18 years prior to any malpractice taking place at all (the article stated 21 years total at the time of the filing of the suit, and the malpractice happened 3-4 years before the suit was filed). If this were a hetero couple, I find it highly likely (although not guaranteed) that they would have married during this time. However, due to the fact that the partners were of the same gender, those legal protections were not afforded to them, so they sought whatever legal protections they could as soon as they were available to them. They entered into their civil union and marriage, respectively, shortly after those unions became legal in Connecticut, which strongly suggests to me that these two people would have married each other much sooner if they had been allowed to do so.

My overall point, while I didn't express it clearly before, is that these people played by the rules and followed the laws as they were allowed. Now those same laws are attempting to shut one widow out based on a technicality of timing. That sucks. :(

[keepCAblue]

4. You're overlooking the obvious. They weren't married because they COULDN'T get married...

"...because their marriage was not legally established until after the alleged malpractice took place..."

This couple was together for 21 YEARS. They were in a DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP for 21 years--long BEFORE the malpractice took place--and as soon as they were legally allowed to obtain a civil union in 2005, they did so. Had marriage or civil unions been available to this couple prior to the misdiagnosis, they could have and most likely would have made their union legal. The judge is flat out wrong in penalizing this couple for not getting married prior to the time of the misdiagnosis when the judge knows that marriage was not an option. This couple's long-term cohabitation (e.g., domestic partnership) was all that was available to them at the time in question. So, NO, you cannot compare this same-sex couple's situation to that of a hetero couple, due to the gross inequality in which the laws and society treated said respective couples.

[dsc]

5. but they were legally civil unionized

and supposedly that was good enough. Now we know it isn't.

[davidinalameda]

6. Connecticut woman denied award in deceased partner’s malpractice suit

A Connecticut woman claims she was unfairly excluded from the medical malpractice suit of her now deceased wife.

A Connecticut judge ruled that Charlotte Stacey would not be able to serve as the plaintiff in Margaret Muerller’s case because their marriage was not legally established until after the alleged malpractice took place, CTPost.com reported.

http://www.365gay.com/news/connecticut-woman-denied-award-in-deceased-partner%E2%80%99s-malpractice-suit/

[xchrom]

7. Another fine example of the abuse and indignation

We go through every damn day.