Betty Harden v. Norbert E. Collins, Md Norbert E. Collins, Md, Inc. Renae Smith, Rn Sylvia Kearney, Crna Fern L. Armbruster, Personally and as Owner/administrator of Silver Fern Homes
Docket: 94-55766
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 19, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the appeal of Betty Harden against defendants Norbert E. Collins, MD, and others following the district court's grant of summary judgment favoring the defendants. Harden claimed violations under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982, and 1985(3), alleging that she was sexually abused while under anesthesia during facial surgery, and that the defendants' actions were racially motivated. The court found no genuine issues of material fact, affirming the district court's judgment.
Harden, a Black woman, underwent surgery on February 20, 1992, performed by Collins with assistance from other medical staff. She alleged that during her sedation, she was sexually assaulted but was unaware of it until post-surgery. After her recovery at Silver Fern Home, operated by defendant Armbruster, she discovered physical signs of trauma. Despite her claims, multiple gynecological examinations found no evidence of sexual abuse.
Harden appealed, raising several issues, including the district court's handling of the alleged rape and sodomy, the required evidence of racial animus to defeat summary judgment, and whether there is a constitutional property interest in one's body. The court reviewed the case under de novo standards, considering the evidence favorably to Harden, but ultimately concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment, as there was no triable issue of fact regarding racial animus or the claims made.
Harden's three claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985(3) all necessitate proof of discriminatory intent, which Harden fails to establish. She presents three assertions to demonstrate this intent: her prior experience with race-based discrimination, the racial dynamics of the alleged sexual assault (a black woman assaulted by a white man), and her entry through a side door rather than the front. However, these points do not suffice to prove discriminatory intent. The court finds that Harden's past experiences do not indicate the defendants' racial animus, nor can intent be assumed solely based on race. Additionally, Armbruster's testimony clarifies that the side door was used for all patients due to convenience, negating claims of discrimination.
Regarding § 1981, which protects contract rights free from discrimination, Harden argues that the alleged sexual abuse impeded her ability to contract for medical services. The court agrees with the district court that while unwanted sexual contact constitutes assault, it does not establish that the defendants intentionally restricted her rights based on race.
Under § 1982, which guarantees equal property rights, Harden presents two theories: the alleged theft of her medical files and the claim of a property interest in her body. The court finds no evidence of racial animus related to the missing files, rendering further factual inquiry unnecessary. It also refrains from addressing the constitutional question of property rights in one's body.
For her § 1985(3) claim concerning conspiracies to deprive constitutional rights, Harden must prove a conspiracy with discriminatory intent. The court concludes that she has not provided evidence of such a conspiracy or intent, leading to the failure of two elements of her claim.
Harden's request for attorney's fees under § 1988 is denied, as she has not prevailed on her claims. Defendant Kearney's request for fees is also addressed, with the court finding the appeal not frivolous. The ruling is affirmed, and the case is deemed suitable for decision without oral argument, with a note that it is not to be published or cited except under specific rules.
