Pierce v. Smith
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
117 F.3d 866 (1997)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
Dr. Diane Pierce (plaintiff) was a medical resident in the emergency-medicine department at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC). As part of Dr. Pierce’s residency program, she spent two months at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. While working at St. Joseph’s, Dr. Pierce attempted to help restrain a patient with possible head trauma. The patient spat in Dr. Pierce’s face, leading Dr. Pierce to slap the patient twice. Though St. Joseph’s administrators were unhappy with the incident, Dr. Pierce was allowed to finish her rotation. Upon returning to TTUHSC, Dr. Pierce was placed on probation and notified by Dr. David Smith (defendant), the Residency Director at TTUHSC, that Dr. Pierce would be required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Smith made this decision in consultation with Dr. Louis Binder (defendant), the Assistant Dean of the TTUHSC Department of Emergency Medicine. As part of Dr. Pierce’s psychiatric evaluation, she was asked to take a urinalysis drug test. Dr. Pierce objected to the drug test at TTUHSC, but she did take a urinalysis drug test at an independent laboratory, the results of which were negative. Dr. Smith accepted the test results and removed Dr. Pierce from probation. Dr. Pierce filed a lawsuit against Dr. Smith and Dr. Binder, alleging, among other things, that subjecting her to a urinalysis drug test violated her Fourth Amendment rights. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Pierce and awarded her damages. Dr. Smith and Dr. Binder appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Garwood, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.