Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Ayva S. Sha's claims against Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and associated medical personnel. Sha, who underwent treatment for ovarian cancer, alleged that non-diseased organs were removed without her informed consent, asserting that her disabilities impeded her ability to consent. Her suit included claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and state medical malpractice laws. The district court dismissed all claims except the ADA claim against Memorial, which was later dismissed on summary judgment due to Sha's failure to request accommodation as required under the ADA. During proceedings, Sha abandoned her ADA claims against individual defendants. The appellate court supported the district court's dismissal of all federal claims and declined jurisdiction over the state malpractice claims. Sha's motion for reconsideration was also denied, and the appellate court upheld the district court's rulings, effectively concluding the litigation in favor of the defendants.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abandonment of Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: During oral arguments, the plaintiff abandoned her ADA claims against individual defendants, leading to the dismissal of those claims.
Reasoning: During oral arguments, Sha conceded that her claims against individual Defendants under the ADA were abandoned.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodation Requestssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that under the ADA, a request for accommodation must be made, and the plaintiff did not make such a request, leading to the dismissal of her ADA claim.
Reasoning: Following discovery, on May 4, 2001, the court granted summary judgment for Memorial, stating that under the ADA, a request for accommodation must be made, and the record showed Sha had not made such a request.
Appellate Jurisdiction over State Law Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court declined jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law malpractice claims after all federal claims were dismissed.
Reasoning: As all federal claims were dismissed, the appellate court declined jurisdiction over her state law malpractice claims, affirming their dismissal as well.
Informed Consent in Medical Treatmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff alleged that non-diseased organs were removed without her informed consent, citing disabilities that affected her ability to provide consent.
Reasoning: Sha, who received treatment for ovarian cancer in 1995 and 1996, alleged that non-diseased organs were removed without her informed consent, claiming her disabilities (dyslexia and attention deficit disorder) affected her ability to provide consent.