Update On The Dr. Boothe Lawsuit
The Dr. Boothe lawsuit is a class action suit wherein it was alleged that the defendant, Dr. Charles J. Boothe, a well-known medical specialist, committed sexual battery against the plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe. Boothe’s attorney, Mark Kastan, claimed that the plaintiff’s complaints were false and libelous, and also stated that the plaintiff’s suit was a “malpractice lawsuit”. Boothe, however, remained unfazed by the charges. He maintained that the charges against him were “baseless and without any foundation”. To this day, no concrete evidence has been presented to prove or disprove the defendant’s statements.
Dr. Boothe filed the suit against the plaintiff, Jane Doe, in Federal Court, claiming that the plaintiff had died from a result of the injuries she had endured as a result of the carelessness of her attending an emergency room at a St. Louis hospital.
Dr. Boothe further claimed that the plaintiff’s personal injuries arose from her having “spilled her own fluids” in treating her friend. Also, Dr. Boothe claimed that the plaintiff was not given proper medical attention, and that she later died from complications of those injuries. In addition to medical negligence, the defendant denied all liability. Thus, the suit was filed.
On October 8th, the plaintiff received a notice of default judgment from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
This means that the plaintiff must either pay his or her outstanding balance or face the consequences of going forward in default. The defendant then filed a counter-claim against the plaintiff, stating that the initial complaint was a “frivolous and meritless” claim. The court then ordered a status conference, at which time the court heard both sides discuss their defenses to the complaint. The court then issued an order to the insurance company to insure that Dr. Boothe’s insurance policy would cover any claim stemming from the case.
On November 8th, the plaintiff received notice of the dismissal of his complaint.
Essentially, the court agreed with the defendant’s argument that Dr. Boothe acted reasonably when treating the plaintiff and that the insurance company followed its rules when it insured her. Thus, the plaintiff was left with no other choice but to accept the dismissal. The plaintiff and defendant were notified of their decision on December 12th, after which the parties were required to settle their lawsuit. The defendants, however, did not admit to any wrongdoing, and the case was dismissed.
The plaintiff, nevertheless, appealed the dismissal of his case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
On January 4th, the court granted the motion and voided the dismissal. On March 10th, the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments regarding the merits of the case. On May 8th, the court issued its opinion in this matter, stating that the defendant had waived its right to respond in court. The court also found that there was no abuse of process by the insurance company because it had properly informed the defendant of the complaint and the risks inherent in the case.
On June 9th, the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the court’s decision. He claimed that the insurance company had waived its right to respond because the defendants had a duty to warn them of the risks at issue. The defendant, however, responded that it was entitled to respond to the complaint within three days. The court denied both requests for rehearing. On July 7th, plaintiff filed an application for a new hearing on the date set for the dismissal of his case.
On August 5th, the court issued its opinion reversing the previous decision.
In the June 9th decision, the court held that the insurance company was entitled to defend against the complaint based on its own policy and rules. Accordingly, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint. The plaintiff’s attorney, speaking on behalf of the client, stated that the insurance company would file a counter-claim once the case went to trial. The attorney further stated that the insurance company would pursue its right to recover from Mr. Boothe based on whether there were any personal injuries sustained as a result of the incident.
On August 11th, the case was heard by the same court. Attorneys for the defendant indicated that they would file their reply to the plaintiff’s complaint within two weeks. On August 25th, the court issued an order granting plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. On September 5th, the case was heard again before a judge.
