Allen v. Sisters of Saint Joseph, Civ. A. No. CA-5-1204.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. CA-5-1204. |
| Citation | 361 F. Supp. 1212 |
| Parties | Bernice ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. SISTERS OF SAINT JOSEPH, a nonprofit corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Thomas J. Griffith, Griffith & Brister, Lubbock, Tex., for plaintiff.
Charles B. Jones, Evans, Pharr, Trout & Jones, and Bobby J. Moody, Lubbock, Tex., for defendant.
The above-entitled and numbered cause was filed with the Clerk of this Court on the 13th day of June, 1973, and the plaintiff, by her sworn complaint, asks for a temporary restraining order, permanent injunction and for general relief. Accordingly, due to the emergency nature of the complaint, a hearing was held in open court on the 13th day of June, 1973, at 11:00 a. m. with the attorneys for both plaintiff and defendant appearing on behalf of their respective clients.
After hearing the agument of counsel, the Court finds that there are no material differences between the parties as to the facts of this case and that the facts as alleged in plaintiff's complaint are substantially correct. Briefly, plaintiff is a patient in the defendant's hospital having been placed there after an accident in which she suffered an accidental fracture of her thigh. At the time of the accident and presently plaintiff is late in her third trimester of pregnancy, expecting a multiple birth. In the early periods of her pregnancy she had agreed with her attending physician that she would undergo a tubal ligation after delivery resulting in her sterilization. Plaintiff is an unwed mother of two children, is a welfare recipient, and is subject to epileptic seizures. Because of the fracture of her thigh she is in traction, and because of this condition her orthopedic surgeon and her obstetrician have recommended a cesarean delivery of the child or children that are expected.
The defendant hospital is an institution supported by a religious organization, an order of the Catholic Church, and has received funds under the Hill-Burton Act, from the state and federal governments to build and construct its physical facilities, is licensed by the State of Texas, receives and regularly applies for federal, state, and local government funds under welfare and similar programs and is immune from income and local and state tax liability because of its charitable nature.
Plaintiff now desires to have the tubal ligation at the time the cesarean section is performed. The Sisters, holding the belief that sterilization is contrary to their religion, have refused to allow their facilities for such procedure.
There are other hospitals in Lubbock, Texas, within the immediate vicinity of the defendant's facility that would not refuse the plaintiff the right to have a tubal ligation performed for the purposes of sterilization, but due to the traction and her physical condition it is not practical that she be moved to another hospital. The plaintiff could, should she elect, have this procedure performed in another hospital after the delivery of her expected child or children, and her recovery from the thigh fracture, although this would require additional surgical procedures, anesthesia, and probably an additional abdominal incision which could be avoided should the procedure be allowed at the time of the cesearean section. There is no claim that the sterilization is needed to save the mother's life or correct any serious health malady.
Plaintiff asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
Plaintiff has further cited and furnished to the Court an opinion by the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Taylor et al. v. St. Vincent's Hospital, No. 1090 on the docket of that Court, which is very close factually to the case sub judice. This case plainly and squarely supports the plaintiff's position in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.
...Cir. 1973); Barrett v. United Hospital, 376 F.Supp. 791 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd mem., 506 F.2d 1395 (2d Cir. 1974); Allen v. Sisters of St. Joseph, 361 F.Supp. 1212 (N.D.Tex.1973), appeal dismissed, 490 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 1974). Cf. Ward v. St. Anthony Hospital, 476 F.2d 671 (10th Cir. 1973).Cases......
-
Downs v. Sawtelle
...Hospital, 479 F.2d 756 (7th Cir. 1973) (hospital received Hill-Burton funds and was regulated by the state); Allen v. Sisters of Saint Joseph, 361 F.Supp. 1212 (N.D.Texas 1973) (hospital received Hill-Burton funds, was licensed by the state, received welfare funds, and was tax exempt); Barr......
-
Cardio-Medical Assoc. v. Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr.
...Ozlu v. Lock Haven Hospital, 369 F.Supp. 285 (M.D. Pa.1974), aff'd mem. 511 F.2d 1395 (3d Cir. 1975); Allen v. Sisters of St. Joseph, 361 F.Supp. 1212 (N.D.Tex.1973), appeal dismissed, 490 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 1974); Mulvihill v. Julia L. Butterfield Memorial Hospital, 329 F.Supp. 1020 (S.D.N.......
-
Chrisman v. Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace
...such regulation, is governed by 1983. Doe, supra at 761. 12 This decision was followed by the district court in Allen v. Sisters of St. Joseph, 361 F.Supp. 1212 (N.D.Texas, 1973), aff'd, 490 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 1974) 13 in refusing to order a tubal ligation to be performed in a hospital which......