Nevada Same-Sex Couple Denied Hospital Visitation Despite Domestic Partnership

[DonRedwood]

A same-sex couple in Nevada is raising awareness about the inequality couples experience without marriage after Spring Valley Hospital refused to recognize their relationship. Brittney Leon and Terri-Ann Simonelli have a domestic partnership, which under Nevada state law grants couples all the same rights as married couples. When Leon checked into the hospital last month because of complications in her pregnancy, the admissions officer told Simonelli she would have to secure power of attorney to be with her partner.
Leon ended up losing her baby, and Simonelli had to rely on the doctor for updates, spending long stretches of time without news on her partner’s condition and the fate of her family. This was despite the fact that the hospital had no hesitations about accepting Leon’s insurance, which is provided through Simonelli’s job.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/08/20/713251/nevada-same-sex-couple-denied-hospital-visitation-despite-domestic-partnership/

This is why my partner and I are always nervous when we travel. We take the ORIGINAL of our domestic partnership and we practice lying--we're ready to say things like, "His father is a Lawyer who has argued in front of the supreme court twice. He would LOVE to sue you for denying us our legal rights", etc....

Pathetic that we have to worry about such things in the country we pay taxes in.

[msongs]

1. jesus don't like it so you can't have it either lol nt

[pinto]

2. The hospital was way out of line here and violated federal mandate.

I see that the couple have chosen not to file suit, but glad to see this incident get some publicity. And, fwiw, the hospital representative cited "making medical decisions" as the need for a power of attorney. BS. She just wanted to be with her partner from what I can see. And if they spoke about any medical decisions they made them jointly. The woman wasn't incapacitated to the extent of inability to make an independent medical decision.

[orleans]

3. i wonder why they aren't suing

that hospital needs a swift kick in the ass or they'll keep pulling this crap on other couples

[DonRedwood]

11. I would sue... gay groups should be protesting too

[DonRedwood]

9. yeah....not being able to be there to support your partner....

i talked with my inlaws about this and told them the hospital better be ready to shoot me because it would be the only way they'd keep me out of my hubby's room.

[2pooped2pop]

4. the hospital's role is to keep the patient safe

Keep visitors down, don't excite the patient, let him/her rest.

It is not to keep loved ones away.

It is helpful to have the support of your family and people you love when you are sick. More so if dying.

[DonRedwood]

12. or losing your baby, as in this case

[2pooped2pop]

13. that is not the time to be alone

this is just so fucking wrong.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Please, someone tell me again how "civil unions" and marriage are the same.

[Ms. Toad]

6. It is really not clear from the articles what was going on.

One talks about needing a power of attorney to make decisions, the other talks about it in reference to being with her partner. They are two different things.

I need a power of attorney to make decisions for my same gender spouse of nearly 32 years. So does my mother to make decisions for her husband of 57 years. That varies some by state - and I don't know what Nevada's laws are (and the article didn't research it). I don't necessarily disagree with the requirement as long as it applies to everyone. Even though my mother does get to make decisions for her husband, he does not have full freedom to make decisions for her. I share that with him, because my mother has very specific wishes which he would be unlikely to be able to carry out - especially since medicine is the one thing he seems completely unable to understand.

On the other hand, when visitors are restricted to family only, a power of attorney won't necessarily get me in to see my spouse because that doesn't convert non-family into family. I can't tell from the articles whether she was kept away from her spouse at a time when family members would have been permitted to be in the room. Some medical situations are intense enough that no one is allowed in the room - and it isn't at all clear whether this was one of these settings or not. One of the articles noted that she didn't think a heterosexual spouse would have been kept waiting so long - which implies that in similar situations a heterosexual spouse also would have been kept out.

And - I'm a bit more skeptical that we don't know all the facts since this is now the third variation I've seen on the article, with the first alleging that the discrimination is what caused the loss of the child.

It is clear to me the couple felt they were being treated differently because they were a same gender couple. It isn't at all clear to me what that difference was.

There is very real discrimination against same gender couples, and domestic partnerships are NOT equivalent to marriage, despite what anyone tries to tell our community. But there is also a lot of confusion about medical care/rights, some care which is perceived as being discriminatory which actually isn't (because straight folks are subject to the same legal requirements, but we're mostly unaware of it), and a lot of fear out there that is unjustified - some of it having to do with powers of attorney (which everyone - not just same gender couples, and not just couples - should have).

I hate it when sloppy reporting puts me in the position of being unable to determine how much outrage is actually justified (and whether - in this case - it is a problem of the law or an uneducated hospital)

[csziggy]

10. With heterosexual couples it is almost NEVER and issue

Why should it be a question with same sex couples?

I recently had stays in two different hospitals. While I made sure that the institutions had on file my health advocate authorizations, I found that not one single medical person had any hesitation about sharing medical information with my husband even if those medical people could never have seen that authorization or had gotten verbal permission from me to share my information. I was somewhat appalled that information was shared so casually without checking on my husband's relationship to me or whether I had authorized him to received that information.

I don't know if those same people would have been as forthcoming had we been a same sex couple but I do know there was no question that information was given without ever checking either the authorization or the legal status of our relationship.

On the other hand, here in Florida was the case with a same sex couple where the partner was kept from being with her companion through her death, despite having power of attorney and other legal authorizations. It was that case, if I remember correctly, that caused this matter to be brought to nationwide attention.

If proof of legal status is required to allow visitation and authorization for medical decisions, it should be required no matter what the sexes of the couple are.

[Ms. Toad]

14. My point is that the articles are not clear about the facts.

In many states (I don't know how Nevada handles it) proof of authorization for medical decisions is required (a durable power of attorney or living will) - because no one (even a legally recognized spouse in many states) can make medical decisions on your behalf once you are no longer able to make them - and you can designate any adult to make those decisions, even if your marriages is recognized. As I noted, I have equal rights to my father if my mother should ever be unable to make decisions for herself.

As to your experience, in the institutions I have been in recently, once the documents are on file they are available to every medical person on the team - so I am not sure what medical personnel you might have come in contact with who could not have seen the documents.

As to visitation, proof of legal status for visitation is almost never required for straight couples - and if that is what was being denied, there is definitely reason for outrage.

My point is that I don't know which was denied in this case, because the reports conflict. The one that seems to have fewer iterations of telephone tag indicates the documents were needed to make medical decisions - and in many states that is required regardless of the legal status of the relationship.

In case it wasn't clear, I am in a same gender relationship and have been for nearly 31 years. We have only encountered two instances of discrimination - shortly after HIPAA when they were still sorting out the rules. In one instance I was required to sign an affidavit and personally present it before my spouse would be allowed to drop our daughter off at sick child care (at the local children's hospital) when I needed to be out of town when my daughter was ill. Drop her off (as in my spouse already had possession of her), not pick her up (in which there might be more risk for the hospital) - even though they had already dealt with us for more than a year and knew both of us well so the real risk was virtually zero. The other was when my spouse in front of the treating doctor authorized him to release records to me post-surgery but he did not record it in the chart, so when I was reviewing the chart in the recovery room a staff member not present grabbed it from me. In that instance it actually felt more like she didn't want any non-medical person reviewing a chart - something I have experience with in connection my own charts and my daughter's (even though the denial was ostensibly based on HIPAA and the lack of documented authorization to release information to me - an authorization they are also required to obtain even if our marriage had been recognized, but which I'm pretty sure they would not have even thought of had we been a mixed gender couple).

Just because we have been lucky doesn't mean discrimination doesn't happen. It does. Way too often.

But it doesn't help fight discrimination when we get outraged about discrimination without knowing the facts - and make claims that ultimately can't be backed up. The three reports I have read are not consistent with each other - ranging from the discrimination caused the loss of the child (on one extreme) to the discrimination resulted in a longer wait for information (on the other extreme). In my opinion, the former calls for a very different response than the latter.

[Rhiannon12866]

7. It's pathetic that anyone ever has to worry about these things!

[xchrom]

8. Du rec. Nt