Judge Rules: Too late for Women to sue over stolen embryos

[Marie5656]

Judge: Women too late to sue over stolen embryos

Saturday, July 22, 2006; Posted: 5:02 p.m. EDT (21:02 GMT)



IRVINE, California (AP) -- A group of women anguished over having their eggs and embryos stolen and placed in other women were told by a judge it is too late to sue.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Stephen J. Sundvold on Friday dismissed eight lawsuits sparked by the University of California Irvine fertility clinic scandal of the 1990s, saying the cases should have been filed within three years of myriad newspaper articles that began appearing in 1995.

"The patients didn't know their eggs were stolen, so they weren't put on notice for a claim," argued Manuel Corrales, an attorney for the women.

But Sundvold said at least 100 newspaper stories about the matter appeared in 1995 and that the "widespread and pervasive nature" of the publicity should have spurred the victims to act.

The women's attorneys also argued that the publicity was largely limited to Orange County, where few of the women live.

"I thought (the judge) had no conscience," said Rosalinda Elison, whose eggs were taken during treatment for reversal of a tubal ligation and implanted in a woman who gave birth to twins.

Elison moved from Riverside County to the high desert near Lancaster in 1997, and was never contacted by UC Irvine.

The cases were among about 30 filed in 2002 and 2003 by women who unknowingly had their eggs and embryos implanted in barren women.

After the scandal became known, the university pledged that its "first priority" would be to locate the women.

The university has acknowledged it failed to contact at least 20 couples and has settled six of the cases, all filed against the University of California system. But it has also fought some cases in court, saying the scandal's enormous publicity should have been sufficient warning.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Accountable]

My kneejerk reaction is that I'm with the women. It's not the newspapers' job to notify theft victims.



And what of the children from these stolen eggs and embryos? Don't the victims have some legal claim? After all, they never signed away their parental rights.

[OpenMind]

I'm with the plaintiffs. The University performed what is tantamount to child theft.

The University clearly made no effort to contact the women whose eggs they took. Depending on newspaper articles mainly in one county is surely inadequate. What was the judge thinking of. I think that his judgement should be checked.

I think that this is an appalling way to treat the women. It is theft and an abuse of a contract. And it involves something more than just property. I don't think that the judge has been at all fair.

[cars]

Judges are people too, & people make mistakes. This judge made a really big mistake! These women's rights have been violated, as it was "part of their bodies" that was indiscriminately given away without their consent! They have every right to sue, especially since they were never notified of what was going on, at the time it was going on! It's just unfortunate that so much time has passed before this injustice was uncovered! :wah:

[Accountable]

flopstock wrote: I wonder if these women could be sued for support?See, I'd written that as well, then deleted it. It's good to see I think at the genius level. :-6

[cars]

flopstock wrote: I wonder if these women could be sued for support?


Leave it to you flop! :p :rolleyes: