G. B. v. Lackner
Decision Date | 20 April 1978 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 2 A.L.R.4th 752 G. B., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Jerome LACKNER, Director, Department of Health, State of California, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 41363. |
Paul R. Perdue, Patricia D. Lee, Managing Atty., San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation, San Francisco, David C. Moon, Berkeley, for plaintiff and appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Asher Rubin, John Davidson, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for defendant and respondent.
In 1975, the appellant, hereinafter referred to as G. B., consulted Dr. John Brown, a plastic surgeon, who diagnosed him as suffering from gender identity dysphoria or transsexualism. Dr. Brown determined that it was medically necessary and reasonable to perform surgery, which would involve the removal of the male sex organs and construction of female genitalia.
Dr. Brown filed a treatment authorization request with the San Francisco Medi-Cal field office. The request was denied by Dr. Wayne Erdbrink, a Medi-Cal consultant who is an ophthalmologist. No examination of any kind was ever performed on G. B. by the Department of Health.
G. B. requested a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 10950 and got it. It was held in San Francisco on October 28, 1975 before Lester Lisker, a referee for the Department of Health, who ordered the treatment authorization request be granted.
The order of the referee was reversed by the Director of the California Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as Director). His refusal to authorize Medi-Cal to pay for the proposed surgery is set forth in a document entitled "Decision of the Director" and was signed by Lee Helsel, Deputy Director. The decision reads, in part, as follows:
At the hearing before the referee, G. B. presented evidence by Dr. W. A. Tennant, a psychologist, Dr. Richard Crews, a psychiatrist, Dr. Jack Leibman, a medical doctor whose specialty is internal medicine and is a consultant to the Stanford University gender dysphoria program and Dr. John Brown, a physician specializing in surgery. Dr. Erdbrink, the ophthalmologist, appeared on behalf of the Department of Health and presented a Medi-Cal bulletin dated September 1974, which contained the following announcement:
Dr. Leibman asserted that G. B. "must have this (gender change) surgery to alleviate her emotional problems, prevent them from exacerbation, and to rehabilitate her to the point where she can function as a normal person and participate fully in society."
Dr. Brown stated that G. B. "must have the requested surgery to treat her disorder and prevent further suffering, enable her to participate in normal living, and obtain steady employment."
Dr. Tennant concluded a discussion of this type of surgery as follows: "Denial of this valid medical treatment can lead to a further deterioration in the psychological health of the transsexual resulting in self-mutilating acts and in some cases suicide."
Dr. Richard Crews declared that,
The reversal of the referee's decision by the Director was on the sole ground that the proposed surgery was cosmetic in that it would change the appearance of G. B.'s external genitalia and, therefore, was not covered under the Medi-Cal Program. The Director's conclusion that castration and penectomy changes the appearance of male genitalia seems strained.
There is no dispute that G. B. is an adult male transsexual. Adult male transsexuals, such as G. B., are not transvestites nor homosexuals but are males who have irreversibly accepted a gender identification as female. (See generally, Stoller, Sex and Gender (1968); Green & Money, Transsexualism and Sex Reassignment (1969) p. 268.) Medical experts agree that the etiology of transsexualism is unknown but that it occurs early in life and is a serious problem of gender role disorientation. (Benjamin, Should Surgery be Performed on Transsexuals, 25 Am.J. of Psychotherapy, pp. 74-75.)
Dr. Leibman, quoted above, describes transsexuals as a
Dr. Brown, G. B.'s physician, states that surgery
John Hoopes, M.D., of the Gender Identity Clinic at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institute points out: (Green & Money, Transsexualism and Sex Reassignment, supra, at p. 268.)
The severity of the problem of transsexualism becomes obvious when one contemplates the reality of the male transsexual's desperate desire to have normally functioning male genitals removed because the male sex organs are a source of immense psychological distress. Transsexuals consider themselves members of the opposite sex cursed with the wrong sexual apparatus.
In Doe v. State, Dept. of Public Welfare (1977) 257 N.W.2d 816, 819, the Supreme Court of Minnesota, after discussing the nature of transsexualism, found that: "The only medical procedure known to be successful in treating the problem of transsexualism is the radical sex conversion surgical procedure requested" by the appellant in that case.
In Richards v. United States Tennis Ass'n (Sup.1977) 400 N.Y.S.2d 267, 271, the court states: "Medical Science has not found any organic cause or cure (other than sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy) for transsexualism, nor has psychotherapy been successful in altering the transsexual's identification with the other sex or his desire for surgical change." (See Transsexualism, Sex Reassignment Surgery, and the Law (1970-71) 56 Cornell L.Rev. 963; Transsexuals in Limbo: The Search for a Legal Definition of Sex (1971) 31 Md.L.Rev. 236.)
The extent of Medi-Cal coverage is set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 14059 as follows:
Welfare and Institutions Code section 14105 states in part: "The director shall prescribe the policies to be followed in the administration of this chapter and shall adopt such rules and regulations as are necessary for carrying out, not inconsistent with, the provisions thereof."
Pursuant to this authority, the Director promulgated title 22, California Administrative Code, section 51305, subdivision (g), which reads: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'Donnabhain v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...stretch of the imagination, that such surgery can reasonably and logically be characterized as cosmetic.”); G.B. v. Lackner, 80 Cal.App.3d 64, 145 Cal.Rptr. 555, 559 (Ct.App.1978) (to same effect); Davidson v. Aetna Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 101 Misc.2d 1, 420 N.Y.S.2d 450, 453 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1979......
-
Meriwether v. Faulkner
...see also Rush v. Parham, 440 F.Supp. 383 (N.D.Ga.1977), reversed on other grounds, 625 F.2d 1150 (5th Cir.1980); G.B. v. Lackner, 80 Cal.App.3d 64, 145 Cal.Rptr. 555 (1978); J.D. v. Lackner, 80 Cal.App.3d 90, 145 Cal.Rptr. 570 (1978). In each of these cases the court invalidated a state pol......
-
Stevens v. Knowles
...Dismiss at 1, n.1.) 2. SRS is defined as the "removal of the male sex organs and construction of female genitalia." See G. B. v. Lackner, 80 Cal. App.3d 64, 66 (1978). 3. Dr. Taylor's evaluation is dated July 7, 2010. Dr. Fraser's evaluation is dated August 13, 2010. (TAC Ex. ...
-
In re Antonio C
...849, 863, 283 Cal.Rptr. 788; People v. Compelleebee (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 296, 305, 160 Cal. Rptr. 233; G.B. v. Lackner (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 64, 68, 145 Cal.Rptr. 555.) As such, the challenged probation condition can reasonably be construed as prohibiting the minor from acquiring new tattoo......
-
Challenges facing LGBTQ youth
...Forbidden for Medicaid, Medicare, and CHAMPUS Beneficiaries , 20 WM. & MARY J. WOMEN & L. 625, 642 (2014). But see G.B. v. Lackner, 80 Cal. App. 3d 64 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (“Medi-Cal must cover medically necessary [gender affirmation surgery] procedures and cannot arbitrarily define [gen......
-
Challenges facing LGBTQ youth
...Forbidden for Medicaid, Medicare, and CHAMPUS Beneficiaries , 20 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 625, 642 (2014). But see G.B. v. Lackner, 80 Cal. App. 3d 64 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (“Medi-Cal must cover medically necessary [sex reassignment surgery] procedures and cannot arbitrarily define [sex re......
-
Removing the Constraints to Coverage of Gender-Confirming Healthcare by State Medicaid Programs
...and New York. See, e.g. , J.D. v. Lackner, 145 Cal. Rptr. 570 (Ct. App. 1978) (California permitting coverage); G.B. v. Lackner, 145 Cal. Rptr. 555 (Ct. App. 1978) (same); Rush v. Parham, 625 F.2d 1150 (5th Cir. 1980) (Georgia denying coverage on remand), remanded to sub nom. Rush v. Johnso......