An appeals court in Manhattan last week rejected a constitutional challenge to the Health Care Decisions Act for Persons with Mental Retardation, which was passed in 2002 to give guardians the right to refuse life-saving treatment for retarded individuals under their care. A unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, 1st Department, found that the petitioner, a 26-year-old mentally retarded woman, could not show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause or her due process rights.
September 25, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
An appeals court in Manhattan on Thursday rejected a constitutional challenge to the Health Care Decisions Act for Persons with Mental Retardation, which was passed in 2002 to give guardians the right to refuse life-saving treatment for retarded individuals under their care.
A unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, 1st Department, found that the petitioner, Chantel R., a 26-year-old mentally retarded woman, could not show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause or her due process rights.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
