Judge tosses defamation case brought by Ohio doctor who was acquitted of killing patients
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A former Ohio doctor who was fired before being found not guilty on murder charges in the deaths of 14 patients lost a defamation lawsuit against his former employers on Monday, after a judge stepped in for a jury on grounds the evidence presented by the defendants was incontrovertible.
Franklin County Judge Stephen McIntosh issued his directed verdict against former doctor William Husel, whose attorneys accused Michigan-based Trinity Health and Mount Carmel Health System in Columbus of orchestrating a campaign to destroy his reputation.
Husel was seeking more than $18 million from the health care companies.
His attorney, David Vermillion, said in a statement that Husel's legal team was disappointed that McIntosh would prevent the jury from making a decision in the case after weeks of evidence and testimony had been presented. He said issuing the directed verdict, a procedural move requested by the hospital, 'effectively silences the voices of those who came seeking justice.'
'This is not the outcome that any reasonable person expected, nor is it one that reflects the strength of the evidence presented," he said. 'We are evaluating all legal options, including appeal. This case has always been about more than one courtroom or one ruling. It is about truth, accountability, and the right of every individual to defend their name against false and damaging accusations.'
Mount Carmel issued a statement that said simply, 'We are pleased with the judge's decision.'
Mount Carmel Health System fired the doctor in 2018 after it concluded he had ordered excessive painkillers for about three dozen patients who died over several years.
He initially was charged with murder in 25 deaths in one of the biggest cases of its kind ever brought against a U.S. health care professional. Eleven counts were dismissed before trial.
Husel, now 49, maintained he was trying to help patients deal with their pain, sometimes in the last moments of their life, not speed up their deaths. Despite being found not guilty by a jury on murder charges in 2022, he permanently surrendered his medical license.
He filed multiple lawsuits against his former employer, accusing Trinity Health and Mount Carmel of defamation and malicious prosecution.
As part of the defamation lawsuit filed in 2019, Husel's attorneys said Trinity Health repeatedly spread lies and false information to convince the public and law enforcement that Husel was a killer, even though health system officials knew that was not true.
'Obviously, these false allegations destroyed Dr. Husel's life,' the lawsuit said. Husel gave up his medical license because his lawyers said that he knew the damage to his reputation would prevent him from working as a doctor.
In court documents filed two years ago, Husel said he had been unable to find work and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
Trinity Health had asked a judge to toss the lawsuit, but a Franklin County judge ruled there was enough reason to move forward.
Husel, who worked in the intensive care unit, was charged in cases that involved the use of at least 500 micrograms of the powerful painkiller fentanyl. Prosecutors said ordering such dosages for nonsurgical situations indicated an intent to end lives.
His colleagues who administered the medications at Mount Carmel West Hospital in Columbus weren't criminally charged, but the hospital said it fired 23 nurses, pharmacists and managers after its internal investigation and referred various employees to their respective state boards for disciplinary action.
The hospital reached settlements in multiple cases involving relatives of the patients who died.
___
Seewer reported from Toledo.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
23 minutes ago
- UPI
NIH office to phase out HIV guidelines by next year
The National Institutes of Health office responsible for issuing federal guidelines related to treatment of HIV and AIDS patients in the United States is making major changes. File Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo June 21 (UPI) -- The National Institutes of Health office responsible for issuing federal guidelines related to treatment of HIV and AIDS patients in the United States is making major changes. The NIH Office of AIDS Research or OAR told its employees this week it intends to phase out the guidelines by next June, the Washington Post reported, citing an internal staff email. According to the office, OAR "coordinates HIV/AIDS research across the National Institutes of Health and provides the largest public investment in HIV/AIDS research globally." "In the climate of budget decreases and revised priorities, OAR is beginning to explore options to transfer management of the guidelines to another agency within" the letter obtained by The Post reads. The OAR guidelines contain guidelines related to diagnosis and treatments of HIV and AIDS. There are currently more than 1 million people living with HIV in the United States. It was not immediately clear what the other agency referred to in the letter was or how such a move may affect the guideline, the Post reported. The news comes as President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio move to cut over $8 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID and merge it into the State Department. State Department officials say the move comes with the expectation that other countries will increase their roles in delivering aid around the world. An April report published in the Lancet medical journal found around half a million children globally could die from AIDS by 2030 if the United States cuts its global relief funding. Earlier this week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved use of the HIV drug lenacapavir, which is produced by California-based biopharma firm Gilead Sciences under the name Yeztugo. "Yeztugo is one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of our time and offers a very real opportunity to help end the HIV epidemic," Gilead Science Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Daniel O'Day said in a statement on the company's website
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Is Hologic's Stock Performance Compared to Other Health Care Equipment Stocks?
With a market cap of $14.3 billion, Hologic, Inc. (HOLX) is a Massachusetts-based medical technology firm, primarily focused on women's health. The company develops, manufactures, and sells a comprehensive suite of solutions, including molecular diagnostics, medical imaging systems, and surgical devices Companies worth $10 billion or more are generally described as 'large-cap stocks,' and Hologic fits right into that category, with its market cap exceeding this threshold, reflecting its substantial size and influence in the medical instruments & supplies industry. The company benefits from robust innovation, supported by over 7,000 patents, which fuels its proprietary technologies and product differentiation. Its diagnostics segment, particularly in molecular testing, has shown strong growth, positioning Hologic well in the expanding global healthcare market. 2 Outstanding Stocks Under $50 to Buy and Hold Now Nvidia's Bringing Sovereign AI to Germany. Should You Buy NVDA Stock Here? A $1 Billion Reason to Buy MicroStrategy Stock Here Markets move fast. Keep up by reading our FREE midday Barchart Brief newsletter for exclusive charts, analysis, and headlines. However, HOLX shares have retreated 24.5% from their 52-week high of $84.67 touched on Aug. 9, 2024. Meanwhile, HOLX stock has surged 3.2% over the past three months, surpassing the SPDR S&P Health Care Equipment ETF's (XHE) 4.8% plunge over the same time frame. HOLX stock has plummeted 11.3% on a YTD basis and 10.5% over the past 52 weeks, compared to XHE's 10.6% dip in 2025 and a 6.3% fall over the past year. The stock has remained consistently below its 200-day moving average since early December last year, but has climbed above its 50-day moving average since late May. On May 27, HOLX shares surged more than 14%, leading S&P 500 gainers, after reports emerged that TPG Inc. (TPG) and Blackstone Inc. (BX) made (and were turned down on) a non-binding ~$16 billion takeover bid, valuing the company at $70–$72 per share. The stock's rally reflected investor optimism and underscored the premium valuation placed on its leadership in women's health and diagnostic capabilities. In the competitive healthcare equipment industry, top rival, Align Technology, Inc.'s (ALGN) 13.7% drop on a YTD basis and 25.7% decline over the past year trails HOLX's losses in the same time frames. Among the 19 analysts covering the HOLX stock, the consensus rating is a 'Moderate Buy.' Its mean price target of $68.27 suggests a 6.7% upside potential from current price levels. On the date of publication, Kritika Sarmah did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
9 hours ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'
