New York, New York: For Second Time Doctors and Patients Need to Go to Court to Access Ivermectin

New York, New York For Second Time Doctors and Patients Need to Go to Court to Access Ivermectin

TrialSite recently chronicled the story of an 80-year-old woman who’s COVID-19 case ended up in the New York Supreme Court (Note, in New York state, the Supreme Court is the trial court, and not the highest appellate court). After she was substantially improving with Ivermectin, a new doctor refused to continue the treatment. The family sued, and successfully obtained a court order to re-commence the Ivermectin. The order was by the Honorable Henry J. Nowak. For their part, the “The health system’s lawyers argued medical care should be made by doctors and not the courts.” Now, Judge Frank Caruso also with the New York Supreme Court, Orleans County, has preliminarily ruled for plaintiff Robert Dickinson, who is a patient’s husband and also a physician, in his legal quest for his wife to be allowed to use Ivermectin.

Husband’s Declaration Lays Out Case

In a sworn affidavit, Dr. Dickinson attested to the basis for his lawsuit. He notes that he is seeking that the defendant Rochester General Health hospital comply with the directives of treating Dr. Thomas Madejski’s Ivermectin prescription. The declaration outlines how Dickinson’s wife Glenna Dickinson was admitted to the hospital on January 12 with rapidly declining oxygen levels, and on January 17 she was moved to ICU and intubated with 40% survival odds. The Dickinson’s daughter Natalie happened to be informed about Ivermectin’s benefits and safety, and based on her input Robert approved his daughter to request the ICU doctor to try Ivermectin. He refused. Then Robert had the family doctor Madejski prescribe Ivermectin and arranged for Natalie to hand deliver it to the ICU doctor, and on January 20 that occurred. The ICU then administered a first dose to Glenna. “Within 12 hours, she improved and her numbers stabilized, meaning her lungs were expelling the carbon dioxide; they no longer had to shift her from prone to her back [as had been necessary].” Then, facing, “problems, issues, and refusals in getting Ivermectin to [his] wife; based upon Rochester General Hospital refusing to follow my requests as health care proxy and advocate,” he turned to the court.

Family Doctor’s Perspective

In a separate declaration, Dr. Thomas Madejski gave his take on this medical/legal battle. He notes he is seeking an order compelling the defendant to prescribe and administer Ivermectin. The doctor notes that he has treated Glenna as a general doctor for 14 years. When she tested positive for COVID-19 on January 7, he used remdesivir, Zpac, and other medicine. Her condition worsened and she was admitted to the hospital on January 12. Like Glenna Husband, he notes that she was moved to ICU and put on a ventilator on January 17. Late on January 19, daughter Natalie made a formal request to the ICU physician to prescribe Ivermectin, and the doctor refused. Madejski told the treating doctor that he was finding success with Ivermectin in his own practice. When this didn’t help, Madejski himself prescribed the drug with the plan that Natalie would deliver it. On January 20 the first dose was given. Within 12 hours, Ms. Dickinson had improved and “her numbers stabilized.” Despite this, the ICU authorities would not continue to use Ivermectin, and court commenced.

A Win for Ivermectin for Now

In an Order to Show Cause (like a preliminary decision that a plaintiff is entitled to relief) from January 21, the Honorable Frank Caruso said that he reviewed the filings by Dickinson and Madejski and their exhibits, and he notes that, “the Plaintiff, Robert Dickinson, seeks an Order granting him immediate and emergency relief (A) compelling the Defendants and/or their agents to comply with primary care physician, Dr. Thomas Madejski’s, order prescribing Ivermectin to their mutual patient, Glenna Dickinson, according to its dosage for Covid-19, namely 12 milligrams on day 1, day 3, day 5, and every other day thereafter as ordered by Dr. Madejski, and (B) such other, further, and different relief as this Court may deem just, equitable, and proper.” The Order to Show Cause directs the defendant to explain why the court should not compel the use of Ivermectin. Key, the judge ordered that pending the court case, Ivermectin must be given as prescribed by primary care doctor Madejski.

Responses

  1. Today I sent an urgent message to the AP asking them to revise or replace their negative 11 December advisory on ivermectin, citing the WHO-funded meta-analysis by Dr. Hill’s groups and pointing out that the best available data strongly support its use.
    Lawrence E Mallette, MD, PhD

  2. It would be easy to argue that the ICU doctor is acting unethically and is displaying his lack of up to date medical education. By up to date, I mean week by week, in this rapidly evolving field of treating Covid-19 to best effect.
    Here would be the reasoning:
    • Ethical physicians will always use the best evidence at hand in their decision making.
    • The best evidence at hand, while not perfect, strongly suggests that ivermectin is effective. The evidence was nicely summarized in Dr. Hill’s 11 minute video report on his team’s recent WHO-funded meta-analysis of the 11 randomized trial of ivermectin submitted to that date.
    • There in no concern about harming the patient with this extremely safe and inexpensive medication.
    • The current NIH guidelines no longer recommend against using ivermectin outside of a randomized trial.