July 14, 2008
Same Sex Partner Can't Sue for Med Mal
Cynthia Kalish married her partner as soon as it was legally permitted in Massachusetts, but the Massachusetts SJC ruled that she can't be a plaintiff in a med mal suit related to injuries prior to the marriage. The Boston Globe has more.
July 14, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Same Sex Partner Can't Sue for Med Mal:
This case is eye opening.
I always thought, homosexual marriage was a futile attempt to save family law. Only an idiot male would get married today, given the all out lawyer assault on family formation. So family law lacks business. This implies that the conservative US Supreme Court will support homosexual marriage, in accordance with the Rent Seeking Theory of Appellate Decisions.
This case implies, torts will benefit from homosexual marriage, by doubling the homosexual plaintiff pool for all kinds of torts. Now, I know, the Supreme Court will support homosexual marriage. The Rent from it could be bigger than expected for family law alone.
I also predicted homosexual business would disappoint the family law lawyer. Homosexuals are intelligent, and will not get married much. Torts can supplement the meager family law rent.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 14, 2008 11:48:04 AM
And this is a surprise? It must have been a slow news day or something. In California, the rule is you can't marry a claim, which is pretty much the general rule as far as I am aware. The real shame was that Massachusetts, and other states, had not done something to give homosexuals an equivalent legal status (e.g. civil unions or registered domestic partnerships) that would have extended the right to Mrs. Kalish to be a plaintiff before same-sex marriage was legalized. Of course, I think California was in the minority of extending that (and only passed the law allowing same-sex partners to stand as plaintiffs after the Dianne Whipple case).
Posted by: Bill | Jul 17, 2008 10:34:15 PM