Difference between revisions of "Flatt v. Kantak and Meritcare"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (added sections and new category) |
m (fixed CIRP URLs) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Flatt v. Kantak and Meritcare''' is a 1999 North Dakota case. The parents of Josiah Flatt sued in [https://www.ndcourts.gov/court-locations/cass-county Cass County District Court], Civil Case No. 99-3761, Dr. [https://www.sanfordhealth.org/doctors/sunita-kantak Sunita Kantak] who circumcised Josiah Flatt and [https://library.ndsu.edu/fargo-history/?q=content/fargo-clinic-and-meritcare-health-system Meritcare Hospital of Fargo] where he was circumcised. The plaintiffs were represented by [[Zenas Baer]] of Hawley, Minnesota.<ref name="forum1999">{{REFnews | + | '''Flatt v. Kantak and Meritcare''' is a 1999 North Dakota case. The parents of Josiah Flatt sued in [https://www.ndcourts.gov/court-locations/cass-county Cass County District Court], Civil Case No. 99-3761, Dr. [https://www.sanfordhealth.org/doctors/sunita-kantak Sunita Kantak] who circumcised Josiah Flatt and [https://library.ndsu.edu/fargo-history/?q=content/fargo-clinic-and-meritcare-health-system Meritcare Hospital of Fargo] where he was [[circumcised]]. The plaintiffs were represented by [[Zenas Baer]] of Hawley, Minnesota.<ref name="forum1999">{{REFnews |
|title=Fargo couple want ban on female genital mutilation to include boys | |title=Fargo couple want ban on female genital mutilation to include boys | ||
|url=http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html#flatt | |url=http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html#flatt | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
== Trial == | == Trial == | ||
| − | Presiding Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger denied a motion for summary judgment and said the case may proceed to trial on 3 February 2003. The precedent setting decision confirms that a baby who is circumcised can sue his doctor when he reaches age of majority, even if there was parental consent for the circumcision, and even if the results are considered to be 'normal.’ [[J. Steven Svoboda]], executive director of [[Attorneys for the Rights of the Child]] (ARC) commented, "This is the latest in a series of warnings to doctors who still circumcise: proceed at your peril, because even if you get parental consent and do a standard job of the circumcision, the child can still grow up and sue you for taking away part of his penis."<ref>{{REFweb | + | Presiding Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger denied a motion for summary judgment and said the case may proceed to trial on 3 February 2003. The precedent setting decision confirms that a baby who is [[circumcised]] can sue his doctor when he reaches age of majority, even if there was parental consent for the [[circumcision]], and even if the results are considered to be 'normal.’ [[J. Steven Svoboda]], executive director of [[Attorneys for the Rights of the Child]] (ARC) commented, "This is the latest in a series of warnings to doctors who still circumcise: proceed at your peril, because even if you get parental consent and do a standard job of the circumcision, the child can still grow up and sue you for taking away part of his penis."<ref>{{REFweb |
|url=http://www.boystoo.com/press/flattpress.htm#Attorneys | |url=http://www.boystoo.com/press/flattpress.htm#Attorneys | ||
|archived= | |archived= | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| − | Judge Rothe-Seeger issued an order in limine to exclude from the evidence presented pictures of a circumcision, the circumcision instruments, and other matters.<ref>{{REFdocument | + | Judge Rothe-Seeger issued an order in limine to exclude from the evidence presented pictures of a [[circumcision]], the circumcision instruments, and other matters.<ref>{{REFdocument |
|title=Order on Motions in Limine | |title=Order on Motions in Limine | ||
|url=http://www.boystoo.com/legal/Order%20On%20Motions%20In%20Limine.pdf | |url=http://www.boystoo.com/legal/Order%20On%20Motions%20In%20Limine.pdf | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
Judge Rothe-Seeger dismissed the case against Meritcare Hospital after the plaintiffs called their last witness, leaving Dr. Kantak as the sole remaining defendant.<ref name="baird2003">{{REFnews | Judge Rothe-Seeger dismissed the case against Meritcare Hospital after the plaintiffs called their last witness, leaving Dr. Kantak as the sole remaining defendant.<ref name="baird2003">{{REFnews | ||
|title=Hospital dismissed from circumcision lawsuit | |title=Hospital dismissed from circumcision lawsuit | ||
| − | |url= | + | |url=https://www.cirp.org/news/2003/2003-02-14_theforum.php |
|last=Baird | |last=Baird | ||
|first=Jeff | |first=Jeff | ||
|coauthors= | |coauthors= | ||
|publisher=The Forum | |publisher=The Forum | ||
| − | |website= | + | |website=[[CIRP]] |
|date=2003-02-14 | |date=2003-02-14 | ||
|accessdate=2020-07-20 | |accessdate=2020-07-20 | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
}}</ref> served as expert witnesses for the defendants. | }}</ref> served as expert witnesses for the defendants. | ||
| − | The jury ruled that Dr. Kantak was not negligent in in explaining the risks of circumcision to Anita Flatt for her newborn son, Josiah.<ref name="forster2003">{{REFnews | + | The jury ruled that Dr. Kantak was not negligent in in explaining the [[Circumcision_risks| risks of circumcision]] to Anita Flatt for her newborn son, Josiah.<ref name="forster2003">{{REFnews |
|title=Judge hears circumcision trial request | |title=Judge hears circumcision trial request | ||
| − | |url= | + | |url=https://www.cirp.org/news/2003/2003-07-09_theforum.php |
|last=Forster | |last=Forster | ||
|first=Dave | |first=Dave | ||
|coauthors= | |coauthors= | ||
|publisher=The Forum | |publisher=The Forum | ||
| − | |website= | + | |website=[[CIRP]] |
|date=2003-07-09 | |date=2003-07-09 | ||
|accessdate=2020-07-20 | |accessdate=2020-07-20 | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| − | Zenas Baer, attorney for the plaintiffs petitioned the court for a new trial.<ref name="forster2003" /> | + | [[Zenas Baer]], attorney for the plaintiffs petitioned the court for a new trial.<ref name="forster2003" /> |
== Precedent == | == Precedent == | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
|Author=Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger | |Author=Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{SEEALSO}} | ||
| + | * [[Informed consent]] | ||
{{LINKS}} | {{LINKS}} | ||
| − | * http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html | + | * {{REFweb |
| − | * | + | |url=http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html |
| − | * | + | |title=After 13 years, justice for boy left brain-damaged after circumcision |
| − | * http://www.boystoo.com/legal/informconsent1.htm | + | |date=2000-03-08 |
| − | * http://www.boystoo.com/press/flattpress.htm | + | |accessdate=2022-02-24 |
| + | }} | ||
| + | * {{REFweb | ||
| + | |url=https://www.arclaw.org/press-releases/circumcision-case-to-proceed-to-trial | ||
| + | |title=Circumcision Case to Proceed to Trial | ||
| + | |date=2002-07-29 | ||
| + | |accessdate=2022-02-24 | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | * {{REFweb | ||
| + | |url=https://www.cirp.org/news/2003/2003-02-14_theforum.php | ||
| + | |title=Hospital dismissed from circumcision lawsuit | ||
| + | |last=Baird | ||
| + | |first=Jeff | ||
| + | |website=[[CIRP]] | ||
| + | |date=2003-02-14 | ||
| + | |accessdate=2022-02-24 | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | * {{REFweb | ||
| + | |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20190411071400/http://www.boystoo.com/legal/informconsent1.htm | ||
| + | |archived=yes | ||
| + | |title=Flatt v. Kantak 1 and Meritcare Hospital: What Constitutes Informed Consent? | ||
| + | |date=2019-04-11 | ||
| + | |accessdate=2022-02-24 | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | * {{REFweb | ||
| + | |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20190411122400/http://www.boystoo.com/press/flattpress.htm | ||
| + | |archived=yes | ||
| + | |title=Flatt v. Kantak: N.D. Suit on Informed Consent | ||
| + | |date=2019-04-11 | ||
| + | |accessdate=2022-02-24 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{ABBR}} | {{ABBR}} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:51, 19 June 2024
Flatt v. Kantak and Meritcare is a 1999 North Dakota case. The parents of Josiah Flatt sued in Cass County District Court, Civil Case No. 99-3761, Dr. Sunita Kantak who circumcised Josiah Flatt and Meritcare Hospital of Fargo where he was circumcised. The plaintiffs were represented by Zenas Baer of Hawley, Minnesota.[1]
Case
Anita Flatt gave birth to a son early on 6 March 1997. That evening, a nurse asked Anita Flatt to sign a consent form to permit the circumcision of newborn Josiah Flatt. The Flatts allege that the consent form was deficient in not stating the benefits or the risks of the procedure. According to the lawsuit, Flatt was still on medication and in great pain at the time the consent form was presented.[1]
Trial
Presiding Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger denied a motion for summary judgment and said the case may proceed to trial on 3 February 2003. The precedent setting decision confirms that a baby who is circumcised can sue his doctor when he reaches age of majority, even if there was parental consent for the circumcision, and even if the results are considered to be 'normal.’ J. Steven Svoboda, executive director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC) commented, "This is the latest in a series of warnings to doctors who still circumcise: proceed at your peril, because even if you get parental consent and do a standard job of the circumcision, the child can still grow up and sue you for taking away part of his penis."[2]
Judge Rothe-Seeger issued an order in limine to exclude from the evidence presented pictures of a circumcision, the circumcision instruments, and other matters.[3]
Robert S. Van Howe, M.D.[a 1], Christopher J. Cold, M.D.[a 1], and Eileen Wayne, M.D.[a 1], served as expert witnesses for the plaintiffs.
Judge Rothe-Seeger dismissed the case against Meritcare Hospital after the plaintiffs called their last witness, leaving Dr. Kantak as the sole remaining defendant.[4]
The Vogel Law Firm represented the defendants. Craig Shoemaker, M.D.[a 1],[5] and George W. Kaplan, M.D.[a 1],[6] served as expert witnesses for the defendants.
The jury ruled that Dr. Kantak was not negligent in in explaining the risks of circumcision to Anita Flatt for her newborn son, Josiah.[7]
Zenas Baer, attorney for the plaintiffs petitioned the court for a new trial.[7]
Precedent
| “ | Precedent A baby who is circumcised can sue his doctor when he reaches age of majority, even if there was parental consent for the circumcision, and even if the results are considered to be 'normal.' – Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger |
See also
External links
(8 March 2000). After 13 years, justice for boy left brain-damaged after circumcision
. Retrieved 24 February 2022.- (29 July 2002).
Circumcision Case to Proceed to Trial
. Retrieved 24 February 2022. - Baird, Jeff (14 February 2003).
Hospital dismissed from circumcision lawsuit
, CIRP. Retrieved 24 February 2022. - (11 April 2019).
Flatt v. Kantak 1 and Meritcare Hospital: What Constitutes Informed Consent?
(archive URL). Retrieved 24 February 2022. - (11 April 2019).
Flatt v. Kantak: N.D. Suit on Informed Consent
(archive URL). Retrieved 24 February 2022.
Abbreviations
References
- ↑ a b
Sullivan, Jack (December 1999)."Fargo couple want ban on female genital mutilation to include boys", The Forum. Retrieved 19 July 2020.
- ↑ Svoboda, J. Steven (29 July 2002).
Circumcision Case to Proceed to Trial
, http://www.boystoo.com, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child. Retrieved 19 July 2020. - ↑
Rothe-Seeger, Cynthia: Order on Motions in Limine. (24 January 2003). Retrieved 20 July 2020.
- ↑ Baird, Jeff (14 February 2003)."Hospital dismissed from circumcision lawsuit", CIRP, The Forum. Retrieved 20 July 2020.
- ↑ Shoemaker, Craig: Deposition of Craig Shoemaker, Vogel Law Firm. (27 February 2002). Retrieved 20 July 2020.
- ↑ Kaplan, George W.: Flatt vs. Kantak 3: Deposition of George Kaplan, M.D. (archive URL), Vogel Law Firm. (26 February 2002). Retrieved 20 July 2020.
- ↑ a b Forster, Dave (9 July 2003)."Judge hears circumcision trial request", CIRP, The Forum. Retrieved 20 July 2020.
.svg){kind=icon}