Massachusetts Know Your Rights - Page 36 of 40 - GLAD Law
Skip Header to Content
GLAD Logo Skip Primary Navigation to Content

News

GLAD is working with Massachusetts Representative Carl Sciortino to pass an Act Relative to HIV-Associated Lipodystrophy Treatment (HD2612), introduced on Jan 18. The bill requires private insurers, MassHealth, and the Group Insurance Commission to provide medical treatment for lipodystrophy, a debilitating and disfiguring side effect of some HIV medications.

HIV antiviral medications, known as “triple combination therapy” or “the cocktail,” revolutionized AIDS care in the 1990’s, extending the lives of people with HIV. These medications also can result in lipodystrophy, the abnormal distribution of body fat. The condition creates “visible disfiguring and stigmatizing morphological changes” in body shape and appearance, causing profound physical and psychological harm to people with HIV.

While there are inexpensive, effective medical treatments for lipodystrophy, insurers routinely deny claims for treatment on the basis that they are cosmetic and not medically necessary.

Read the Fact Sheet about lipodystrophy and HD2612. Download the Fact Sheet PDF.

News

In an important decision issued today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously that Massachusetts must recognize other states’ parallel spousal statuses for same-sex couples, such as California registered domestic partnerships. Under the ruling, both spouses are the legal parents to children born into such unions.

The decision, written by Chief Justice Roderick Ireland, states, “Under Massachusetts law, children born into a legal spousal relationship are presumed to be the children of both spouses.”  Moreover, “any child born as a result of artificial insemination with spousal consent is considered to be the child of the consenting spouse.”

“Because the parties to California RDPs [Registered Domestic Partnerships] have rights and responsibilities identical to those of marriage,” it is proper to treat “the parties’ RDP as equivalent to marriage in the Commonwealth.”

“We’re pleased that the Court agreed with our argument that Massachusetts should respect parallel spousal statuses like registered domestic partnerships, which provide all of the state-based protections for same-sex spouses, except for the name ‘marriage,’” said Senior Staff Attorney Vickie Henry of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

“The parties met, fell in love, committed themselves to each other legally, and started a family,” said Henry. “Recognizing the legal status advances Massachusetts’ commitment to equality and honors the intentions of the parties. Most critically, recognition protects the children, securing their legal relationship to the two parents they have known.”

The ruling stems from the case A.E.H. v. M.R. GLAD represented A.E.H. in the appeal.

Read the full press release

News

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) reacted with disappointment today to the Commonwealth’s announcement that it will appeal the district court decision which established that gender reassignment surgery is necessary medical care for prisoner Michelle Kosilek.

Gunner Scott, Executive Director of MTPC said, “We are very disappointed that the Commonwealth has decided to go in this direction.  Care that is medically necessary for prisoners cannot be denied based on public opinion.”

Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director for GLAD said, “Constitutional rights belong to everyone, even the least loved, least popular people among us.  Prisoners have a right to necessary medical care, and this is indisputably medical care, as the very strong district court decision established.”

She added, “There really is no legal ground for this appeal.  We believe the district court decision is very solid and will stand.”

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and HIV status.

The Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition is dedicated to ending discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

News

BOSTON- Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) is pleased to announce that two of its outstanding attorneys are being honored with prestigious awards in the coming weeks. GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project Director, Jennifer Levi, is receiving the National LGBT Bar’s highest honor, the Dan Bradley award. GLAD Senior Staff Attorney Vickie L. Henry is being honored by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly as one of their 2012 Top Women of the Law.

“We are so lucky to have such incredible attorneys here at GLAD,” says GLAD Executive Director Lee Swislow. “These awards provide well-deserved recognition for both Vickie and Jennifer’s outstanding work.”

Jennifer L. Levi is the director of GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project and a nationally recognized expert on transgender legal issues. She co-edited Transgender Family Law: A Guide to Effective Advocacy, the first book to address legal issues facing transgender people in the family law context and provide practitioners the tools to effectively represent transgender clients.

The Dan Bradley award recognizes the efforts of a member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender legal community whose work has led the way in our struggle for equality under the law. Levi will receive her award this Friday at the National LGBT Bar Association’s 2012 Lavender Law Conference in Washington, D.C.

Vickie L. Henry is GLAD’s Youth Initiative Coordinator and has been visiting students across the Commonwealth to promote the Got Rights? Campaign – a collaboration between GLAD and BAGLY (The Boston Alliance of GLBT Youth) – meant to educate LGBTQ youth about their legal rights. Henry advocates for LGBTQ students, homeless youth, and children in the foster care system.

The Massachusetts Lawyer’s Weekly award celebrates legal educators, trailblazers and role models who have demonstrated outstanding accomplishments in their chosen fields.  More than 100 nominations were submitted for consideration of the award. The Honorees will be celebrated at a luncheon on Friday, October 12, 2012. The event will be held at the Hynes Convention Center in Boston and will feature State Auditor Suzanne M. Bump as the keynote speaker.

A.E.H. v. M.R.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously September 28, 2012 that Massachusetts must recognize other states’ parallel spousal statuses for same-sex couples, such as California registered domestic partnerships. Under the ruling, both spouses are the legal parents to children born into such unions.

GLAD served as lead appellate counsel in this case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) concerning the parentage of two children born into a California registered domestic partnership (RDP). The Massachusetts Probate and Family Court ruled that both parties are equal legal parents for the two children and, pursuant to established child custody standards, awarded our client, A.E.H., primary physical custody.  GLAD continues to argue that Massachusetts should respect the legal spousal status granted by the RDP and extend to couples who have established that status the full scope of spousal protections, including those related to children born into the relationship and the ability to dissolve the relationship.

Oral argument took place before the SJC on May 8, 2012.

Todd Elia-Warnken v. Richard Elia

July 26, 2012 – Victory! The MA Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor our our client, Richard Elia, stating that “a Vermont civil union must be dissolved prior to either party entering into a marriage with a third person in the Commonwealth.”  The ruling further states that “We shall recognize a Vermont Civil Union as equivalent to marriage in the Commonwealth under principles of comity.”

GLAD argued before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) April 5, 2012 in a case regarding the validity of a marriage entered by a party with an undissolved civil union to another person.

When our client, Richard Elia, married Todd Elia-Warnken in 2005, Mr. Elia-Warnken already had a legal spousal relationship with another man – a civil union from Vermont – that had never been dissolved.  When Mr. Elia discovered this in the middle of their pending divorce, he sought to have the divorce action dismissed on the grounds that he and Mr. Elia-Warnken had never been legally married.

The Probate and Family Court granted the motion to dismiss, and the case is now awaiting argument at the SJC, which took the case on direct appellate review rather than allowing the case to proceed through the Appeals Court. GLAD will continue to argue that because Mr. Elia-Warnken already had a legal spouse, the parties’ marriage violated Massachusetts law prohibiting multiple marriages and was thus void from its inception.

Adams v. Bureau of Prisons

Update: September 30, 2011

A settlement was announced September 30, 2011 in the case of Vanessa Adams, a Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) inmate at FMC Butner in North Carolina who has gender identity disorder (GID). Ms. Adams sued BOP in order to receive appropriate treatment for her GID.

Ms. Adam’s challenge to BOP’s treatment of transgender prisoners resulted in BOP ending its so-called “freeze frame” policy in which treatment for any person with GID is kept frozen at the level provided at the time he or she entered the federal prison system.  In Ms. Adams’ case, this meant that because she had not received treatment for GID before being incarcerated, BOP refused to provide her with medically necessary care even though its own doctors diagnosed her with GID, told her about treatments available for GID, and knew about the seriousness of her medical condition.

“BOP’s freeze frame policy trapped transgender prisoners in despair, leading often to depression, suicide attempts, and in many cases, serious self-harm, as was the case with Vanessa,” said Jennifer L. Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

The change in policy was promulgated via two memoranda, dated May 31, 2011 and June 15, 2010, from BOP’s Medical Director to all BOP’s chief executive officers.  The May 2011 memorandum ends:

In summary, inmates in the custody of the Bureau with a possible diagnosis of GID will receive a current individualized assessment and evaluation.  Treatment options will not be precluded solely due to level of services received, or lack of services, prior to incarceration.

The memo also states that “current, accepted standards of care will be used as a reference for developing the treatment plan.”

The memos have been distributed to all individuals in the prison system who have been diagnosed with GID, as well as to the medical staff treating these prisoners.

Background

GLAD, in conjunction with the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, Florida Institutional Legal Services, and Bingham McCutchen LLP, challenged the federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) policy that prohibited medical care for transgender inmates who came into the BOP without a treatment plan for transition. When the case began, our client, Vanessa Adams, was being denied medically necessary hormone therapy and prevented from otherwise expressing a female gender identity because she was diagnosed with GID post incarceration. In an initial victory, Vanessa was allowed to begin hormone therapy.  GLAD and co-counsel opposed the BOP’s motion to dismiss the case, however, in order to ensure continued proper treatment for our client as well as challenge the Bureau’s other denials of transition-related medical care and the policy itself.

In a June 7, 2010 ruling, Federal District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro rejected the BOP’s argument that Vanessa’s claim is invalid because they started her on hormone therapy after she filed her case. Citing the BOP’s initial denial of Vanessa’s treatment, and the fact that BOP does not disavow the policy, the court ruled that the policy’s constitutionality and BOP’s practice remain in question.  The court also rejected the BOP’s efforts to have the case transferred to Missouri where Vanessa was, until recently, incarcerated, finding that enough significant events occurred while she was in Massachusetts to make the Massachusetts venue appropriate.

The case has been ordered to mediation as the discovery and pre-trial process proceeds.

Press Release on the June 7, 2010 denial of the BOP’s motion to dismiss

Dixit v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care

GLAD negotiated a successful settlement on behalf of our client after Harvard Pilgrim Health Care refused to cover treatment for the severe lipodystrophy he developed as a result of taking anti-HIV medication.

When Amit Dixit came to GLAD, the powerful anti-HIV drugs that he was taking to keep him alive had brought on severe lipodystrophy, which he found devastating.  Large, abnormal growths of fat appeared on his shoulders, back, neck, and under his arms, distorting his body and his face. He lived with this condition and its profound psychological and social impact for a decade.

Yet his insurer, Harvard Pilgrim, would not pay to treat this debilitating condition – saying that removing the fat by liposuction is “cosmetic” only, as though it were a tummy tuck or lip-plumping.  While insurers have long paid for plastic surgery for people who have burn injuries, been in car accidents, or require cancer-related breast reconstruction surgery, they continue to trivialize similar needs for people with HIV who are experiencing bodily changes.

GLAD filed an appeal on Amit’s behalf with Harvard Pilgrim, even as we prepared to file a lawsuit.  Much to our delight and Amit’s, Harvard Pilgrim reversed itself and agreed to pay for his treatment.  He had a successful surgery in April, 2010.

Carr v. New England Medical Center

GLAD won a favorable settlement on behalf of a gay man denied sperm banking and transport services simply because he is gay and assumed to be at “high risk” for HIV.

Shaw v. Murphy

On February 19, 2008, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Ashley Shaw, who has sought to get MassHealth to cover her medically necessary HIV-related surgery. When Ashley was 15, her doctors recommended the surgical removal of a fat pad from her neck, a side-effect of her HIV medications. MassHealth denied coverage on the eve of the surgery, and argued that Ashley had waived any right to reimbursement because her mom decided to go ahead with the surgery before exhausting all appeals.

A Massachusetts Superior Court Judge sided with MassHealth, and GLAD appealed. GLAD argued, and the Appeals Court agreed, that MassHealth must review the medical necessity of the procedure. MassHealth has agreed to pay for the surgery.

en_USEnglish
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

To learn more, visit our privacy policy.