Wednesday, January 29, 1997
LAWSUIT:
Patients allege researchers did not reveal consequences of
studyBy Gil Hopenstand
Daily Bruin Staff
With the trial date quickly approaching, a case alleging
negligence by UCLA’s Neuropsychiatric Hospital was expanded
yesterday to include allegations of federal civil rights
violations.
State Superior Court Judge David Perez yesterday granted the
request filed by former participants in a university research study
on schizophrenia.
The March 3 trial will determine whether researchers’ alleged
failure to disclose study protocol and known dangers  and the
alleged subsequent cover-up  constitute a deprivation of
patients’ federally protected civil rights.
This is the first time such an argument will be used in the
state of California.
"It’s very significant. As far as we know, there is only one
other case in the country that focuses on this as a civil right
violation, and that is in Cincinnati," said Lee Potts, one of the
patients’ attorneys. "No one has ever sued the university on that
theory. This is new area that is being explored."
The case involves a federally-funded UCLA schizophrenia study
begun more than 10 years ago to conclude how and why patients
relapse.
University filed court documents state that "this research study
mirrored the everyday treatment of schizophrenics, but in a
controlled setting."
"Patients were prescribed an acceptable neuroleptic medication
to stabilize their schizophrenia, and then the medication was
withdrawn after stabilization," the documents claimed. "The goal
was to help clinicians better determine the extent to which
patients needed to be on these toxic medications."
The patients, however, contend that they were not properly
notified of the study’s procedures or consequences. As such, they
are now claiming doctor negligence and that their "federal rights
to bodily integrity" were violated.
"The evidence … demonstrates that the defendants acted
willfully, maliciously and with conscious disregard of plaintiffs’
rights under the laws of California and the United States," the
patients’ motion states.
Though the case is limited to former schizophrenia research
patients Greg Allers and Antonio Lamadrid, they are not the only
ones to complain about treatment at the Neuropsychiatric
Hospital.
In the hospital’s accreditation review in August 1995, family
members of several hospital patients  some of whom are
deceased after receiving care at the hospital  spoke before
the board which regulates the institution’s operating license
alleging negligence and impropriety.
Despite their claims, the hospital still holds full
accreditation and has been repeatedly named the best psychiatric
hospital in the western United States by U.S. News and World
Report.
But in the Allers and Lamadrid case, Perez yesterday also
allowed the patients to seek monetary damages from the individual
defendants in the trial.
The next course of action is examining financial records of
those individuals who may be held financially accountable for
potential damages.
Potts explained that damages "are based on the worth of the
defendants," adding that they cannot calculate how much they will
seek "until we know what they’re worth."
"It’s supposed to hurt but not destroy" the defendants, Potts
added.
The two sides will narrow down the current list of 12 defendants
to a mere handful of names at a Feb. 28 hearing to again be heard
by Perez.
At the hearing, Perez released the University of California
Board of Regents from any potential monetary damages because they
are an arm of the state of California, which is immune from such
liability.
University attorneys claimed that yesterday’s motions were
untimely, coming too close to the trial’s start. But Perez agreed
with the patients’ attorney Elizabeth Mann, who argued that it took
time to adequately scour over the "literally hundreds and hundred
of documents."
"(A previous judge) told us not to come back without full and
sufficient evidence," Mann argued before Perez. "It took a longtime
to get those documents."
The university’s attorneys could not be reached for comment
yesterday afternoon.