Researcher Asks Supreme Court for Help
Headline News
[##_1L|1319421207.jpg|width="101" height="102" alt=""|_##]A cancer researcher is asking the Supreme Court to block a decision handing ownership of thousands of blood and tissue samples to a university. Dr. William Catalona spearheaded creation of a repository of more than 3,500 prostate tissue samples and 100,000 blood samples during a 27-year career at Washington University in St. Louis.
In 2003, Catalona became director of the Clinical Prostate Cancer Program at Northwestern University in Chicago, asking participants in former research efforts that he oversaw at Washington University if they would consent to transferring their tissue to Northwestern.
Donors of 4,000 tissue samples agreed to the transfer, but Washington University sued to keep the samples there, and won rulings from a U.S. District Court judge and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In papers filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, Catalona says he and the research participants could suffer irreparable harm if the appeals court decision is allowed to go into effect.
Washington University could use the tissue in studies the patients would find objectionable, or publish research results in a way that could identify the patients, Catalona's lawyers argued, raising the possibility that participants or their family members might be denied health, life or disability insurance.
In June, Dr. Larry Shapiro, dean of Washington University's School of Medicine, called the appeals court decision a precedent that assures the right of research institutions to use repositories without fear they will be taken or disrupted.
A dozen major research universities, as well as the American Cancer Society and associations of medical colleges and universities, had filed briefs supporting Washington University.
Catalona's lawyers asked Justice Samuel Alito to delay the appeals court decision until the full Supreme Court decides whether it will review the case.
Related listings
-
Sonoma County Court workers file labor complaint
Headline News 08/16/2007[##_1L|1306940538.jpg|width="101" height="102" alt=""|_##]Workers at Sonoma County Superior Court who were prohibited from wearing union paraphernalia at work filed an unfair labor practices complaint against their administrators, saying the order vi...
-
Law firm to dedicate Norton Commons office
Headline News 08/16/2007Goldberg and Simpson PSC will dedicate its new $5 million, 35,000 square-foot office building in Norton Commons at a ribbon-cutting ceremony Monday. The law firm is moving to the northeastern suburbs after 25 years in National City Tower downtown. Jo...
-
Entrust Deploys E-mail Encryption for Top-50 U.K. Law Firm
Headline News 08/15/2007Charles Russell, a U.K.-based law practice, heard the resounding requests from their customers and clients: provide seamless e-mail encryption to protect sensitive data. In response, the top-50 law firm looked to Entrust and the Entrust Entelligence ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.