You say: "The fact that he received medical treatment for substance abuse couldn't be used against him in the case. If he never received substance abuse treatment, it couldn't and wouldn't have been mentioned."
Wrong. If you can show me anything whatsoever affirming that he was in drug rehab, I'll concede the entire argument to you. Until then, please consider that:
I do not have confidence in my ability to read legal jargon and can't say with certainty what that quote means, and unless you passed the bar, I don't have confidence that you can either. When I don't know something, I go to an expert. A lawyer with decades of experience told me this meant he was treated for substance abuse. I will take his word over yours. But am glad you seem to be back inspector
So based on that I should accept that it's a "fact" that CPH had a substance abuse problem? Why don't you ask your expert again, and this time, be sure to include the lawsuit citation that I provided. A criminal prosecutor might not be familiar with civil practice law rules. Your expert wouldn't provide legal advice in say a bankruptcy or a contracts case, or a malpractice lawsuit for that matter, but rather would provide a reference to a competent attorney that practiced that particular type of law. This is normal for lawyers. I'm not trying to disparage your expert. I'm quite sure that they are competent in their field.
The reason I ask you to include the lawsuit citation when you double-check with your source is because this is definitely a law citation that the judge in CPH's particular case, Honorable Jonas, would be aware of. I know this because the same exact judge ruled against the plaintiff in the same exact case on the same exact issue just a few months prior (see the decision dated April 19, 2001). Yes Truthspider, I actually went to the online court case at and read all the way through all of the available documents, which I am able to understand in their entirety.
In the April 19th motion:
"The defendant, Long Beach Medical Center, herein requests, pursuant to CPLR $3101(a) and $3124, that the Court direct plaintiff to provide authorizations for it to obtain the infant's psychiatric and counseling records from the organization known as Families of Alcoholic Counseling and Treatment Services Center (FACTS). Available medical records show that NXXX CXXX lives in a home that was extensively involved with alcohol and drugs, witnessed frightening threats between parents, and saw his father removed from the house in handcuffs by police. Dr. Andrew Kent noted the infant CXXXXX situation to be complicated by several factors including a likely genetic predisposition to substance abuse coupled with other factors that possibly had a significant influence on the infant's condition."
...Pursuant to CPLR $3121, a party who places his mental condition in controversy may be compelled to provide written authorizations for the discovery of relevant records...
...Defendant's motion for disclosure of existing psychiatric records and reports and psychological counseling reports from Families of Alcoholic Counseling and Treatment Services Center is granted pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)....
From the September 28, 2001 Motion:
"Plaintiffs proof in this case is insufficient to satisfy its initial burden of demonstrating that Dr. Hackett s medical condition at the time of the alleged malpractice is in controversy."
In other words Truthspider, there was no credible or reasonable evidence furnished in this case by the plaintiff relative to substance abuse by CPH, or it (the discovery motion) would almost certainly have been granted by the judge. Judges are fairly lenient with discovery motions in civil cases like this. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, Truth, but that's just what all this "legal jargon" means.
