Judge reviews doctor's fate in abortion case

7/13/2013

TOPEKA (AP) — Attorneys for a Kansas doctor who lost her license over referring young patients for late-term abortions argued in court Friday that state regulators punished her too harshly over allegations that she kept inadequate records.

TOPEKA (AP) — Attorneys for a Kansas doctor who lost her license over referring young patients for late-term abortions argued in court Friday that state regulators punished her too harshly over allegations that she kept inadequate records.

But the general counsel for the State Board of Healing Arts said the doctor-regulating agency revoked Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus' license because her "wholly inadequate" records suggest she did only cursory exams of the patients before giving the late Dr. George Tiller the second opinions he needed under Kansas law to perform late-term abortions at his Wichita clinic.

Neuhaus filed a lawsuit in Shawnee County District Court last year to overturn the board's revocation, which prevents the 55-year-old physician from the small, northeast Kansas town of Nortonville from providing even charity care. A hearing Friday in her case was the last one scheduled before Judge Franklin Theis rules.

Abortion opponents believe Neuhaus helped Tiller circumvent state restrictions on late-term abortions by declaring that patients' mental health problems were serious enough to warrant terminating their pregnancies. Tiller — among a few U.S. physicians known to perform abortions in the final weeks of pregnancy — was shot to death in May 2009 by a man professing strong anti-abortion views.

The board last year concluded that Neuhaus jeopardized the care of 11 patients, aged 10 to 18, with inadequate mental health exams in 2003.

Neuhaus and her attorneys have argued that she's been the target of a long-running campaign by anti-abortion groups. Abortion opponents monitored Neuhaus' activities for years, and the board's case stemmed from a complaint from an anti-abortion leader in 2006.

Kori Trussell, one of Neuhaus' attorneys, noted that no patients complained about Neuhaus' care. He said the "real issue" is whether her records lack documentation of her actions, which doesn't typically cost doctors their licenses.

"In other contexts, lack of documentation didn't lead to revocation," Trussell said. "So why the difference?"

Kelli Stevens, the board's general counsel, said Neuhaus has a legal duty to maintain proper records so other providers have adequate information when treating patients later.

Stevens added there's no evidence in Neuhaus' records that she did much of anything in her exams.

"This case is not about abortion. It is in the context of abortion," Stevens said. "What's relevant to this case is the mental health evaluations."

Theis gave no timetable for ruling, except to say, "It'll be a while."

Neuhaus contends her exams met accepted standards of care and testified during a board hearing last year that she didn't put more information in her records to protect patients' privacy. Trussell said Friday that her records were meant to be viewed "in conjuction" with Tiller's.

Neuhaus' reports on the 11 patients, compiled with a "PsychManager Lite" computer program, were five pages or less and didn't cite details from patients' statements or data gleaned from her exams.

comments powered by Disqus
I commented on a story, but my comments aren't showing up. Why?
We provide a community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day.
Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. We expect civil dialogue.
Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome.
Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum.

If you don't see your comment, perhaps you ...
... called someone an idiot, a racist, a moron, etc. Name-calling or profanity (to include veiled profanity) will not be tolerated.
... rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.
... included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.
... accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.
... made a comment in really poor taste.

MULTIMEDIA