In re Hofbauer
New York Court of Appeals
393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Joseph Hofbauer was seven years old when he was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease. Without treatment, the disease was typically fatal. The standard treatment for the disease was radiation and possibly chemotherapy. However, these treatments carried some risks. Hofbauer’s parents (defendants) decided to take Hofbauer to Jamaica to treat him with nutritional and metabolic therapy that included injections of a laetrile, a controversial substance related to cyanide. When the family returned to New York, state officials (plaintiffs) charged the parents with neglect for failing to provide Hofbauer with adequate medical care for his disease. The family started seeing a New York doctor, Dr. Michael Schachter, to continue Hofbauer’s nutritional and metabolic therapy. Schachter believed that the therapy was helping Hofbauer but claimed that he would recommend more conventional treatments if Hofbauer’s condition worsened significantly. Hofbauer’s father stated that he would follow whatever recommendation Schachter made for Hofbauer. The trial court found that Hofbauer’s parents were (1) loving, (2) trying a type of alternative treatment that multiple doctors would recommend, and (3) pursuing this treatment under a licensed doctor’s recommendation and care. Based on these findings, the trial court ruled that Hofbauer was receiving adequate medical care and that his parents were not neglecting him. An intermediate court affirmed the ruling, and the state appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jasen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
