Is there any recourse for a medical professional if a patient sexually assaults them in a small way? Is there a recourse for a medical professional if a patient behaves inappropriately? (I would call it sexual assault but to be honest I don't know what would and wouldn't qualify for that definition - please feel free to edit the question title as appropriate). Specific example: female medical professional, the patient shoves his hand inside her top and into her bra, then grabs the shirt front preventing her from moving away. Assume that it doesn't repeat, only happens once with that patient. Is there any legal remedy to be sought against the patient? Criminal or civil? If this sort of thing happens regularly at the hospital, is there any legal remedy against the hospital? I'm not sure if jurisdiction matters, but let's say NY, NJ or CT states in US.
There are no small sexual assaults Indecent assault/sexual assault/sexual touching Different jurisdictions have different definitions but, wherever you are, the behavior you describe is a criminal offense and the appropriate course of action is to report it to both your employer and the police. The fact that the perpetrator is under the professional care of the victim does not change this although, if the positions were reversed, this would be an aggravating factor. That is, assuming you are willing to make a statement to the police and, ultimately, testify before a court. It may not come to that - the police may not press charges. You can also civilly sue for the damage you have suffered. Work Health and Safety Your employer has an obligation to provide a reasonably safe workplace. If this is a not uncommon occurrence then they should have analyzed the risk and determined appropriate mitigation strategies and trained you in these. Have they?
germany You have the duty to help others even if they cannot articulate that. There was a case recently where people stepped over an unconscious person to get money from an ATM, thinking it was a homeless person sleeping inside the rather warm entrance to the public bank building. Turned out it was a normal elderly customer who had a medical emergency. Three customers walked around them and did not get help. Only the fourth customer called an ambulance about 20 minutes later. The person died in hospital, doctors said the delay in treatment did not cause the death, the person would have died even if help had been available earlier. Police used the banks security cameras to prosecute all who had just ignored the person and &quot;thought it was okay, they were just sleeping&quot;. Newspaper Article: For example Der Spiegel. The actual text of the verdict: AG Essen-Borbeck, 18.09.2017 - 3 Ds - 70 Js 654/16 - 252/17, 3 Ds 252/17 In this case it was monetary fines, but if the person had actively asked for an ambulance, like in your case, and were actively denied instead of ignored, I'm pretty sure that would have made it way worse for the defendants.
The answer by @Digital fire is not always correct. Some states have passed general-purpose "duty to rescue" statutes. The one I've been trained about is Vermont's (Cite as: 12 V.S.A. § 519) § 519. Emergency medical care (a) A person who knows that another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or herself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others. The statue goes on to provide good Samaritan protection and state the penalty for violating the statute: a fine of not more than $100. Digital Fire does refer to the Wikipedia article about a duty to act/rescue, but the lead of that article says it is referring to torts, that is, whether the person who wasn't assisted (or his/her estate) could bring a lawsuit against the person who didn't help. But the Vermont statute creates an offense with which the suspect could be charged in a criminal trial.
A number of states, as well as the US Federal Government, have laws against &quot;fetal homicide&quot;, under which a woman might be prosecuted. The Alabama law, to take one example, defines homicide A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes the death of another person and then defines &quot;person&quot; The term, when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault, means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability. The abortion exception is stated thusly: Article 1 or Article 2 shall not apply to the death or injury to an unborn child alleged to be caused by medication or medical care or treatment provided to a pregnant woman when performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider but this exception, which codified a result of Roe v. Wade, could be repealed. There are various reported arrests, prosecutions and convictions of women reported here in cases where the woman did not obtain the abortion through approved medical channels. Generally, there are statutory provisions that preclude prosecution of women and physicians involved in a legal medical abortion, but you would have to carefully scrutinize the wording of those exceptions. If the exception is expressed unqualifiedly as an exception for abortion, then until the law is changed, a woman could not be prosecuting for obtaining an abortion. But if the exception is framed in terms of obtaining a legal abortion, then when abortions become illegal, prosecution of the woman becomes a possibility.
There appears to be no general federal statute addressing the legality of a male entering a female-labeled bathroom, or vice versa, within federal jurisdiction. There are various regulations that touch on bathrooms, for example the OSHA regulations pertaining to sanitation require that "toilet facilities, in toilet rooms separate for each sex, shall be provided in all places of employment in accordance with table J-1 of this section", but "Where toilet facilities will not be used by women, urinals may be provided instead of water closets". These are regulations imposed on employers, and there is no provision for enforcement by employers, for instance no clause saying that the employer must call the police, or in any way intervene or sanction an employee, if a person enters a bathroom of "the wrong sex". It is apparently not a crime, as reflected anywhere in the US Code, for a male to enter or remain in a female bathroom, or vice versa. Building managers have some discretion regarding the operation of federal facilities, for example courthouses, which could extend to requesting a male to not enter a female bathroom or vice versa, but there isn't a practical way to determine what departmental regulations exist that would allow eviction of a bathroom-cross-user. Federal law does not protect against sex/gender discrimination in public accommodations. As for Maryland law, the owner of private property has the right to control his property up to the point that state law take that control from him, and therefore in principle he could call the police to remove a person trespassing in a bathroom (this article addresses the trespass angle in North Carolina). Maryland does not appear to have any case law or statutory exception to trespass laws related to labeling of bathrooms, so enforcement actions would be at the discretion of the owner. At the lower end of the political hierarchy, Baltimore has an ordinance requiring single-use bathrooms to be gender neutral, and a proposal exists to enact a state law with this effect. In other words, there does not appear to be any direct, enforceable legal requirement regarding bathroom entry and sex. Trespass laws could be used, but are at the discretion of the property owner (who might be civilly sued for his actions, but the police don't decide the merits of a discrimination suit before evicting a trespasser).
Practicing medicine without a license or beyond the scope of your license (e.g. engaging in medical activities that your license does not authorize you to engage in, even though you have license to engage in some medical activities) is a criminal offense (e.g. Unlawful Conduct Of Practicing Medicine Without a License, Utah Code Ann. §58-1-501(1)(a) and 58-67-501) in most jurisdictions and is not protected by the privileges afforded to people practicing medically within the scope of their license (e.g. an exemption from laws criminalizing contact with intimate parts when done for medical purposes). Of course, fraudulently claiming to have licensure is also a crime over and above practicing without a license. Administering non-FDA approved medicines to cancer patients, for example, is a federal crime, even if this is done with full disclosure and good intentions. The approval process is described here by the Food and Drug Administration under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. (Similarly, a conviction was obtained in another case for distributing a hormonal weight-loss treatment without a license.) For example, in 2006, a naturopath in Wheat Ridge, Colorado was convicted of "theft, perjury, criminally negligent homicide, illegal practice of medicine and third-degree assault" for providing alternative holistic treatment to someone resulting in their death. Criminal negligence generally involves conduct sometimes also called "gross negligence" that is not just careless but is almost reckless given the serious potential harm that could foreseeable result (and in all cases that are prosecuted, actually did result) from the course of conduct taken. For example, while ordinary medical mistakes by a medical doctor such as confusing two drugs with similar names or putting the decimal point in a prescription dosage, causing harm to a patient, would not ordinarily result in criminal liability, coming into an operating room while too drunk to drive and without reviewing which limb of a patient needs to be amputated despite a clear indication in marker on the leg of a patient showing that fact, might constitute criminal negligence on the part of a medical doctor. Here, if the need for and possible benefits of conventional treatment for breast cancer with particularly clear, prescribing alternative diet based treatment and mental exercises while discouraging conventional medical treatment, might very well constitute criminal negligence on the part of the holistic practitioner. Similarly, a naturopath was criminally charged in Australia with "reckless grievous bodily harm and failure to provide for a child causing danger of death" for urging parents to discontinue medical treatments for a child in favor of a raw food diet, causing serious harm to that child almost causing the child's death. The naturopath admitted that she endangered the child with her medical advice and was ultimately convicted in that case. Liability would be fact specific. Does the person have a license of some kind? Are they within the scope of their license? Do they falsely convey the impression that they are licensed medical practitioners? Did their actions constitute the practice of medicine? But, often, in the fact pattern you describe, particularly if it is not "faith healing" protected by the freedom of religion, this would be a crime. Of course, this doesn't mean that a self-help remedy of murdering the holistic practitioner after the fact is legal. Civil liability for professional negligence and failing to meet the applicable standard of care for a person engaging in the kind of treatment conduct described is also possible. In other words, one can sue a naturopath of money damages for malpractice, just as one could sue a doctor for malpractice. As noted here: Alternative medicine providers can, of course, be guilty of malpractice if they perform their interventions below the commonly accepted standards of their own communities. They may also have liabilities for injuries caused by discouraging patients from seeking conventional care and, in some jurisdictions, for not recognizing when a patient’s condition is beyond the scope of their form of treatment and subsequently referring the patient for treatment by a medical doctor. The fact scenario in the Slate article would appear to implicate grounds for civil as well as potentially criminal liability.
Short Answer No. This is not legal under Virginia law. It is a serious crime. Long Answer The basic reasoning This would be actionable as aggravated sexual battery and punishable by up to 20 years in prison, because the facts demonstrate a touching of intimate parts with an intent to molest (i.e. sexual abuse) and this is accomplished through the victim's physical helplessness, which includes being unconscious at the time for any reason. Intent to Molest, Gratify or Arouse Contrary to user6726, I don't think that groping in the factual context of the question can be reasonably interpreted as lacking an intent to molest under the statute. An interpretation that requires an effect on the victim would be contrary to the fact that the statute is talking about the intent of the perpetrator and to the fact that the statute expressly authorizes prosecutions in cases where the victim is physically helpless a definition that includes unconscious or drugged. One could probably get the court to provide an extra non-standard jury instruction if this was raised by the defense at trial as an issue. The intent to molest, gratify or arouse intent requirement is designed to distinguish between, for example, giving a sponge bath to an unconscious patient at a medical facility or by a family member, or touching someone's breasts in order to get a bra size for a tailor, and &quot;groping.&quot; The intent requirement also excludes unintentional conduct such as slipping and falling into someone by accident. The admission by the perpetrator in the question doesn't suggest any possible non-sexual reason for the contact, and is inconsistent with unintentional conduct. Corroboration From Actual Recent Prosecutions This reading is consistent with the fact that Virginia prosecutors have brought charges in similar circumstances such as the rape of an unconscious woman at a house party and charges against a Virginia DJ for his conduct towards unconscious women. The only material difference between rape and aggravated sexual battery under Virginia law is that rape requires penetration, while sexual battery merely requires sexual contact. Additional Commentary Reaching this conclusion is a bit tricky, because usually aggravated sexual battery would have a narrower definition of the crime than &quot;plain vanilla&quot; sexual battery. But, in Virginia, there is conduct that constitutes aggravated sexual battery which does not constitute &quot;plain vanilla&quot; sexual battery, including molestation by accomplished through physical helplessness which is defined broadly in the relevant statute. In other words, in this fact pattern, &quot;sexual battery&quot; is not a lesser included offense of &quot;aggravated sexual battery&quot; under subsection A(2) of § 18.2-67.3 of Virginia's statutes. Plain vanilla sexual battery includes the circumstances of subsection A(4) of § 18.2-67.3 of Virginia's statutes and some special &quot;statutory rape&quot;/&quot;position of trust&quot; type conduct that is outside of the scope of both A(4) type conduct and aggravated sexual battery generally. I would attribute the statements of the investigator as symptom of poor training about sexual assault cases and a generally regressive state of law enforcement attitudes about sexual assault in Virginia. Your friend should insist on talking to the investigator's supervisor and reviewing the relevant legal citations, with a lawyer, if necessary, if she wants to press charges. Of course, the prosecutor has no obligation to prosecute the case even if the prosecutor had a videotaped confession to every element of the crime. But, there is no reason for a prosecution to be prevented due to a non-lawyer investigator's misunderstanding of the law. A letter of complaint to the investigator's supervisor or the head of the department or the politician to whom the department reports would also be in order. The Statutes The statute creating the crime is as follows, with all of the pertinent language in bold. I have put the word &quot;or&quot; when necessary to see how the statute fits together (which could be omitted in a block quotation showing omissions with &quot;. . .&quot;) in italics and have left the remainder of the relevant statutes in plain text to allow a reader to confirm that the reading I am giving to the statute is correct. § 18.2-67.3. Aggravated sexual battery; penalty. A. An accused shall be guilty of aggravated sexual battery if he or she sexually abuses the complaining witness, and The complaining witness is less than 13 years of age, or The act is accomplished through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness, or The offense is committed by a parent, step-parent, grandparent, or step-grandparent and the complaining witness is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age, or The act is accomplished against the will of the complaining witness by force, threat or intimidation, and a. The complaining witness is at least 13 but less than 15 years of age, or b. The accused causes serious bodily or mental injury to the complaining witness, or c. The accused uses or threatens to use a dangerous weapon. B. Aggravated sexual battery is a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for a term of not less than one nor more than 20 years and by a fine of not more than $100,000. This in interpreted in light of some key definitions: § 18.2-67.10. General definitions. As used in this article: &quot;Complaining witness&quot; means the person alleged to have been subjected to rape, forcible sodomy, inanimate or animate object sexual penetration, marital sexual assault, aggravated sexual battery, or sexual battery. &quot;Intimate parts&quot; means the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, or buttocks of any person. &quot;Mental incapacity&quot; means that condition of the complaining witness existing at the time of an offense under this article which prevents the complaining witness from understanding the nature or consequences of the sexual act involved in such offense and about which the accused knew or should have known. &quot;Physical helplessness&quot; means unconsciousness or any other condition existing at the time of an offense under this article which otherwise rendered the complaining witness physically unable to communicate an unwillingness to act and about which the accused knew or should have known. The complaining witness's &quot;prior sexual conduct&quot; means any sexual conduct on the part of the complaining witness which took place before the conclusion of the trial, excluding the conduct involved in the offense alleged under this article. &quot;Sexual abuse&quot; means an act committed with the intent to sexually molest, arouse, or gratify any person, where: a. The accused intentionally touches the complaining witness's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts; b. The accused forces the complaining witness to touch the accused's, the witness's own, or another person's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts; c. If the complaining witness is under the age of 13, the accused causes or assists the complaining witness to touch the accused's, the witness's own, or another person's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts; or d. The accused forces another person to touch the complaining witness's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts. Also relevant is this statute: § 18.2-67.6. Proof of physical resistance not required. The Commonwealth need not demonstrate that the complaining witness cried out or physically resisted the accused in order to convict the accused of an offense under this article, but the absence of such resistance may be considered when relevant to show that the act alleged was not against the will of the complaining witness.
Most states have two parallel sets of sexual assault statutes. One set punishes sexual assaults involving sexual penetration that has greater penalties. The other set punishes sexual assaults involving sexual contact without sexual penetration that has smaller penalties but otherwise the same elements of the offense. Usually, almost every offense which is a crime when it involves sexual penetration is also a crime when it involves sexual contact but not sexual penetration, with the fairly frequent exception of statutory rape offenses that cover an adolescent victim who is below the age of consent but post-pubescent (with the statute itself setting specific age thresholds that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). Often, even when statutory rape of an adolescent (i.e. sex with consent by an adolescent under the age of consent) itself is a relatively minor crime, often a misdemeanor, and is rarely prosecuted to the full extent of the law, child prostitution or attempted child prostitution with the same victim is often a very serious offense, and child pornography offenses often also carry serious penalties when the &quot;child&quot; is under the age of eighteen, even when the sexual act filmed or photographed itself is of people who are above the age of consent and are legally having consensual sex. In many states, sex with someone in a position of authority over the victim is a crime without regard to consent, much like a statutory rape offense, but without regard to age. In some states there would be a parallel sexual contact offense, and in some states there would not be one. The name of the offenses varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sometimes they are different degrees of the same offense, sometimes they are offenses with different names, and the names used varies quite a bit. Also, even when an arguable sexual contact offense is not a sex offense, it would almost always be some form of non-sexual criminal assault offense. For example, Colorado has sexual assault related crimes called sexual assault at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-3-402 (involving sexual penetration and including two grades of statutory rape, and including cases where &quot;the victim is in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim and uses this position of authority to coerce the victim to submit, unless the act is incident to a lawful search&quot; and cases where &quot;the actor, while purporting to offer a medical service, engages in treatment or examination of a victim for other than a bona fide medical purpose or in a manner substantially inconsistent with reasonable medical practices&quot;), a parallel crime called unlawful sexual contact at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-3-404 (not involving sexual penetration, including cases where &quot;the victim is in custody of law or detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim and uses this position of authority to coerce the victim to submit, unless the act is incident to a lawful search&quot; and cases where &quot;the actor, while purporting to offer a medical service, engages in treatment or examination of a victim for other than a bona fide medical purpose or in a manner substantially inconsistent with reasonable medical practices&quot;), a crime called sexual assault on a child at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-3-405, sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-3-405.3, internet sexual exploitation of a child at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-3-405.4, sexual assault on a client by a psychotherapist at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-3-405.5, incest at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-6-301, criminal extortion at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-3-207, second degree kidnapping at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-3-302, aggravated incest at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-6-302, human trafficking for sexual servitude at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-3-504, sexual exploitation of a child at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-6-403, procurement of a child for sexual exploitation at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-6-404; soliciting for child prostitution at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-402, pandering of a child at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-403, procurement of a child at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-403.5, keeping a place of child prostitution at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-404; pimping of a child at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-405, inducement of child prostitution at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-405.5, patronizing a prostituted child at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-406, internet luring of a child at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-3-306, obscenity at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-102, posting a private image for harassment at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-107, posting a private image for pecuniary gain at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-108, posting, possession, or exchange of a private image by a juvenile at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-109, prostitution at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-201, soliciting for prostitution at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-202, pandering at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-203, keeping a place of prostitution at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-204, patronizing a prostitute at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-205, pimping at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-206, and prostitute making display at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-207, public indecency at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-301, indecent exposure at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-302, sexual conduct in a correctional institution at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-701, criminal invasion of privacy at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-7-801, harassment at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-9-111, hazing at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-9-124, cruelty to animals at Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-9-202, and violations of the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act at Colo. Rev. Statute § 18-17-101, et seq. If found guilty, what would a typical punishment be in the US? In a system in which there are several classes of felonies and several classes of misdemeanors, usually sexual contact offenses are one to three offense classes below the sexual penetration offense with the same elements. For example, if unaggravated sexual penetration without consent is the second lowest grade of felony, unaggravated sexual contact without consent is typically the lowest grade of felony or the highest grade of misdemeanor. A highly aggravated sexual assault with penetration offense is often punishable by decades in prison. An unaggravated sexual contact without consent offense may be punishable by up to six to twelve months in jail or a long period of probation. The offenses are too varied by jurisdiction and crime details to summarize easily. Aggravated rape is a death penalty offense in U.S. military justice although the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the imposition of the death penalty (at least in cases where the victim is not a child) is unconstitutional. Some states declare in their statutes that the aggravated rape of a child is a death penalty offense although the constitutionality of those statutes has not been tested in court and no one has been executed for such an offense since the death penalty was reinstated in the 1970s in the U.S. Most sex offenses in the U.S. of all types, including both sexual contact offenses, sexual penetration offenses, and even offenses involving no contact at all, such being a peeping tom, also require to convicted defendant to register as a sex offender, either for a long period of time or for life, which is a quite severe and separate punishment in addition to the incarceration and/or fine and court costs and surcharges involved. In the case of child sex offenses and some repeat rape offenders, even after a term of incarceration is fully served, the state may seek to have the offender detained indefinitely civilly to protect the public until it is determined that the offender is no longer a threat, which rarely happens in practice.