Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc.

66 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (1999)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...

Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

66 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (1999)

Facts

In 1995, Laura L. Pemberton (plaintiff) underwent a cesarean section to deliver her child. The cesarean section was poorly performed, which created a risk that if Pemberton were to have any subsequent natural deliveries, she could suffer a uterine rupture that could result in the baby’s death. Pemberton became pregnant again and, despite her condition, wanted to find a physician who would agree to a natural delivery. After Pemberton was unable to find a physician, she hired a midwife who agreed to assist in a natural birth. Pemberton went into labor at her home. After being in labor for more than a day, Pemberton and her husband (plaintiff) went to Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center (hospital) (defendant). At the hospital, physician Wendy Thompson informed Pemberton that she needed a cesarean section. Pemberton refused and requested fluids so that she could return home to have the baby. Thompson contacted two of the hospital’s board-certified obstetricians to notify them of Pemberton’s situation. The doctors agreed that it was medically necessary to perform a cesarean section, but Pemberton and her husband had already left the hospital by the time the decision was reached. The hospital attorney sought a court order to require Pemberton to undergo the procedure, and a judge then ordered Pemberton to return to the hospital for a hearing. Pemberton refused, and she was brought to the hospital against her will by an ambulance. At the hearing, the board-certified obstetricians testified that without a cesarean section, Pemberton would likely experience a uterine rupture, which would cause the baby to die. The judge ordered the cesarean section, which was then performed at the hospital. Pemberton did not have any ill effects and the baby was born without complications. Pemberton sued the hospital, arguing that her constitutional rights to bodily integrity, to refuse medical treatment, and to make her own decision in the bearing of children were violated. The hospital motioned for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hinkle, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership