WOMAN SUES DOCTOR FOR TESTING AND INFORMING HER THAT SHE HAS HIV WITHOUT HER CONSENT

Once upon a time, a Harlem woman - who for the sake of this story is named Janequa Doe - had gotten to the point where traditional exercising and dieting was out of the question for her. Her only hope was to get a gastric bypass surgery, and she did just that.

During her recovery, because it was noted that she had a B-12 deficiency, Doe's nutritionist told her to see Dr. Pavel Yutsis for treatments at his clinic in Sheepshead Bay. So, in the summer of 2011 Doe began to see Dr. Yutsis.

B-12 helps red blood cells to develop. And after so many B-12 treatments with Dr. Yutsis, Doe's B-12 and white blood cell levels were still low. Concerned, he suggested that she take an HIV test, but she turned it down saying that she just wanted to recover from her surgery.

On September 9, 2011, Dr. Yutsis told Doe that he needed to draw more blood for further testing. On September 22, he told her that she had HIV. On her way out, some employees were standing around her file discussing it. One of them stopped her and said that sometimes another HIV test proves the initial test to be wrong.

Not only had she been tested without her permission, others knew about it too. 

Doe filed a lawsuit with the Brooklyn Supreme Court last month, citing that she was unaware that her blood was being used to conduct an HIV test. Sometimes the stress from waiting for the results from an HIV test is greater than not knowing at at. I get that. She didn't want to know. She was just concerned with being skinny. But dammit if a doctor is doing something and it's not working, and the only possible explanation is HIV, and the patient doesn't want to be tested, then I think the doctor has an ethical obligation to test regardless. That decision will ultimately save lives.

You already know that Janequa was going to jump head-first into the dating scene. Dr. Yutsis not only saved her life, but he saved other lives too. All she could think about is a lawsuit simply because she didn't want to know.

Read More

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER INMATE'S WAGES CAN BE SEIZED

I'm thoroughly perplexed and I need help understanding this situation.  There's a story out of Illinois involving an inmate, the money he's been earning over 21 years in the inmate work program, and the state, who wants that money back.  Now, I'm no expert on inmate work programs, but I thought the money earned, was money kept.

The state is saying that it wants the $11,000 Kensley Hawkings has been saving over the years.  Once again, I'm no expert on inmate work programs, so after you read this story, I'm going to ask a few questions.

Kensley Hawkins is a deadbeat, according to the state of Illinois.  He owes $455,203.14 to cover the costs of his stay at the Stateville Correctional Center in Joliet. Hawkins has been in prison since Nov. 19, 1982. His jailer is also his debt collector.  Hawkins is fighting in court to stop the state from seizing about $11,000 in his bank account to partially satisfy the debt. The 60-year-old earned the money by working while he's been behind bars, making about $75 a month. The issue of whether the state can repossess the meager wages paid to inmates will be determined by the Illinois Supreme Court, which will hold arguments in the Hawkins case Tuesday. It's the first time the court will address the issue, which also has social justice and public policy ramifications for Illinois.

"To save $11,000 is miraculous, but the money we get from this guy means nothing to the state," said John Maki, coordinating director of the John Howard Association of Illinois, a prison reform organization. "This is not going to help create a prison culture that's more rehabilitative, which makes people less likely to offend again."  The state Department of Corrections declined to comment on Hawkins' case because the matter is pending. Hawkins' lawyers, who are representing him for free, say the case defies logic. "I think this is an arbitrary and wrong-headed application of the law where bureaucratic thinking gets in the way of common sense," said Paul Glad of SNR Denton, formerly Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, which has represented Hawkins since 2005.

Illinois has had an inmate work program since about 1973, according to department spokeswoman Sharyn Elman. The goal is to reduce recidivism by helping prisoners learn new skills and earn some money that they can use upon release. About 44 percent of the state's 48,000 inmates participate in the program, Elman wrote in response to e-mailed questions.
Hawkins began working soon after he entered Stateville, where he was sentenced to 60 years for the 1980 slaying of a 65-year-old man and attempting to kill two Chicago policemen. He wanted to send some money to his daughter, who was 8 when he went to prison, said Glad. Hawkins is up for parole in 2028.  Hawkins learned to build desks, chairs, dividers and cabinets in the prison's wood shop, Glad said. His wages amount to about $2 a day, not including a small commission he earned on each piece sold.  "He's very proud of the work," Glad said. "It's clearly the best part of his life." source

Okay, what does it mean when the state of Illinois says this guy owes them $455,203.14 to cover the costs of his stay over the years?  I thought the taxpayers took care of that?  Do you mean to tell me that Illinois politics are so jacked up, that it's not set up for the taxpayers to cover the costs of the prison system?  Maybe we should investigate that.  And let's just say for shits and giggles that he does have to pay for the cost of room and board.  Wouldn't they tally that number up around the time he's to be released?  And then put him on a payment plan?

Also, how do they know how much money this man has saved?  I mean, does Mr. Hawkings owe so many favors to other inmates that he's telling them how much money he has in the bank and somebody snitched?  Speaking of the bank, if he had to pay for his stay at the prison, why would the prison even pay him?  Why wouldn't they just put it on the tab instead of allowing him to get the money to put it in the bank?  

As far as the Illinois Supreme Court goes, I think they are farce and a mockery to what justice is supposed to be.  I can't believe they're even going to hear this case.  If I can clearly make a case for this man for free, why waste taxpayers money for something as clear-cut as this?  Help me out. After all, I am insane.

Read More