Recently, I watched a documentary on Netflix called “The Medicated Child”. It was a Frontline exposé on the over-medication of children for conditions such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). According to the program, ADHD is one of many mental illnesses whose levels have steadily increased in children since the late ’90s. The program focused on two of the more common drugs used to treat ADHD –  Ritalin and Adderall. Although many parents and doctors interviewed maintained that these drugs make it much easier to deal with children with ADHD, they all agreed that very unpleasant side effects, such as sleeplessness, anxiety and loss of appetite, can be presented.

This rise in prescriptions also means an increase in litigation surrounding this issue. For example, several failure to warn cases have been instituted against Ciba-Geigy, the maker of Ritalin. In one of these cases, a child’s parents sued because they claimed that the manufacturer of the drug and the child’s physician failed to warn them that Ritalin could cause Tourette’s Syndrome. The court ruled that Ritalin was an “unavoidably unsafe product”, but the defendants would only be held to a negligence standard rather than a strict liability standard and found for the defendants Witherspoon v. Ciba-Geigy, 1986 WL 2138.

Another case against Ciba-Geigy was a class action lawsuit claiming that the manufacturer failed to warn of certain side effects of Ritalin. Because the plaintiffs were not able to show that their children experienced any of these side effects, the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim Hernandez v. Ciba-Geigy 200 F.R.D. 285.

  In addition to the product liability cases, ADHD medications have also come up in cases involving educational matters. These types of claims are usually based on section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). One of the earlier cases, Valerie J. v. Derry Cooperative School District, 771 F.Supp. 483, involved an instance where a 12 year old boy’s parents did not agree with the school’s requirement that their son take Ritalin before being given a specialized educational plan called an “Individual Educational Plan” or IEP. The parents prevailed because the court ruled that a child could not be forced to take medication without parental consent.

To get a better idea of the legal trends surrounding this topic, look at the following searches:

WESTLAWNEXT

Content: All State & Federal

Search: ritalin or adderall and hyperactivity and children or adolescents

WESTLAW

Database: FILING-ALL,BRIEF-ALL,JV-ALL

Search: RITALIN ADDERALL /p A.D.D. A.D.H.D. /p CHILD MINOR YOUTH INFANT ADOLESCENT TODDLER & side-effect

Database: ALLCASES

Search – RITALIN ADDERALL /100 A.D.H.D. “ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER” /150 CHILD MINOR YOUTH INFANT ADOLESCENT TODDLER % ti(commonwealth people u.s. “united states”) sy,di(child-custody divorce)

 Database: TP-ALL

Search: RITALIN ADDERALL /100 A.D.H.D. “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder” /150 CHILD MINOR YOUTH INFANT ADOLESCENT TODDLER

Most pregnant women seek out a traditional, medical, model of care for their pregnancies and births, choosing a medical doctor or nurse as their provider and electing to birth in a hospital setting. But there has been a resurgence of women seeking out-of-hospital births, whether that be at a free-standing birth center or at home, often attended by what are known as direct-entry midwives, or sometimes, Certified Professional Midwives (C.P.M.).

Recently, two free-standing birth centers opened near my home. Healthy, low-risk pregnant women hope out-of-hospital birth can help them avoid unnecessary interventions and encourage drug-free labor and delivery. State laws vary regarding the practice and licensure of midwives practicing outside of the hospital setting.

On WestlawNext, click on “Secondary Sources” under  the “All Content” tab,  then “Law Reviews & Journals.” Run the following search within Law Reviews & Journals:

(DIRECT-ENTRY) (“CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL”) /S MIDWIFE MIDWIFERY

I receive 28 results with that search. Browse the headings for articles discussing the legal issues surrounding direct-entry midwifery.

Narrow these results to more recent articles, in the past 3 years, discussing home birth. In the box for “Search within Results” filter on the left, enter:

HOME-BIRTH

Then filter date for “Last 3 Years.”  Apply filters to find 5 articles mentioning home birth within the last 3 years.

The benefits of breastfeeding have been made well known in recent years, with government campaigns, medical organizations, and the media extolling the advantages for babies and mothers. When I became a mother a few years ago, I was committed to breastfeeding my new baby. I found fantastic support here at Thomson Reuters, where I was provided time and a comfortable, well-equipped, private, “Mother’s Room” to express breast milk during the workday. But not all working mothers enjoy such benefits; and breastfeeding can pose some logistical challenges to employers when they are asked to provide accommodations for employees who need to express their breast milk at the workplace. 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act PL 111-148, 2010 HR 3590 made it a requirement for employers with over 50 employees to provide reasonable, unpaid, break time as needed for employees to express breast milk for nursing children up to one year of age. It also required that the employer provide a private place (that is not a bathroom), for employees to express their breast milk. The move was heralded as a positive step in providing protection to nursing mothers who work outside the home, and in support of breastfeeding. But as they exist currently, the protections provided by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are limited to non-exempt employees. 

The Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2011 proposes to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly protect breastfeeding mothers from discrimination, and expand the current break time requirements to salaried, exempt, employees. I wanted to find this proposed legislation and track its progress. I knew the popular name, so I ran the following search in the search box at the top of the Congressional Bills category page under Federal Proposed & Enacted  Legislation on WestlawNext: 

“BREASTFEEDING PROMOTION ACT OF 2011” 

We get two results as of 9.29.2011. One is the Senate Bill (2011 CONG US S 1463), and the other is the House bill (2011 CONG US HR 2758). 

To check the status of these bills,  go to Bill Tracking under Tools and Resources under Federal Proposed & Enacted  Legislation. I wanted to search for both of these bills, so I used the Terms and Connectors search box instead of the template. This was my search: 

CI(1463) CI(2758) & TI(BREASTFEEDING) 

Or, track the bill using CapitolWatch.  The CapitolWatch link on the tools tab in WestlawNext. Find the bills and click, track. 

Click to Enlarge

Westlaw Citation for More v. Obama is 2011 WL 2556039.

The question squarely presented here is whether the minimum coverage provision is consistent with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution…

Monday, A Federal District Court judge in Virginia denied a motion to dismiss the complaint challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s requirement that individuals obtain a minimum level of health insurance coverage or pay a penalty.

After a thorough recitation of each sides arguments related to standing and the scope of Federal Authority under the Commerce Clause, the judge determined,

Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side’s position, this Court cannot conclude at this stage that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action.

2010 WL 2991385

//