Institute faces suit in death of patient

Tuesday, January 26, 1999

Institute faces suit in death of patient

SUICIDES: Judge denied request to add charges; trial set to
begin Feb. 23

By Brian Fishman

Daily Bruin Contributor

In a 5-year-old case alleging the UCLA Neuropsychiatric
Institute and Hospital (NPIH) contributed to the death of one of
its patients, a judge denied the plaintiff’s recent request to add
four more charges to the suit, among them allegations that the
facility performed unauthorized human experiments.

Sujon Guha, who was being treated for mental illness at NPIH,
was found hanging by a belt in his hospital room closet on Nov. 29,
1993. The death was officially ruled a suicide. Guha’s family
claims the hospital was negligent and therefore responsible for the
death.

The original suit, filed by Arun Guha, the father of the
deceased, is scheduled to be heard Feb. 23, but Guha now says
experts will testify that his son’s death was murder, not a
suicide. No criminal investigation is under way.

Despite the L.A. County Coroner’s determination that Guha’s
death was suicide, the elder Guha claims he has a criminal
investigator, among other experts, who will testify that after
building a crime-scene recreation, he determined the younger Guha
physically could not have hung himself in his closet. Purportedly,
other experts will testify that Guha was strangled and then had a
belt placed around his neck.

The university, however, has denied the suggestion that Guha’s
allegation holds any truth.

"To accuse UCLA of murder is absurd," said Warren Robak, a
health sciences spokesperson.

At a Jan. 15 hearing, the family petitioned to amend the suit to
include two charges of intentional emotional distress, one for each
of Guha’s parents; a claim that NPIH performed human experiments
without patient consent; and another asserting the civil rights of
the deceased were violated.

According to court documents, additional charges were denied
because of the claim that these new charges were "caused by" the
hospital’s negligence. While the judge conceded the new charges may
have "arisen from" the hospital’s negligence, the "caused by"
clause indicates the hospital was more responsible than indicated
by the phrase "arisen from."

But Guha claims the amendments were turned down by the court
because the trial date is nearing.

On Jan. 25, California Superior Court Justice Alan Buckner
removed himself from the case, throwing doubt on the trial date of
Feb. 23.

The four additional charges would have added to the already
pending allegations of wrongful death and the infliction of
emotional distress and spoliation of evidence.

The Guha family has also filed a survivors’ claim, a standard
charge intended to compensate the family members of someone who
died wrongfully.

Based on the Guha’s claim, as well as the testimony of family
members of other hospital patients, the NPIH was given a
conditional accreditation by the Joint Commission on the
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Full accreditation was
restored in 1998. (See related story.)

The fact that NPIH was given conditional accreditation is
indicative of the problems NPIH had in 1993, Guha said.

Robak, however, cited the institute’s near-perfect track record
as an indicator of the hospital’s reputation.

"In its history the (Neuropsychiatric) hospital has had two
deaths. That’s more than you want to have, but it’s extremely
good," Robak said.

Buckner, however, said that the Guhas’ allegations are as
extreme as some of the more commonly believed conspiracy
theories.

"(The Guha family) is treating this microcosmically as something
very much approaching the ‘who shot the president’ conspiracy
theory," Buckner said.

Despite the recent setback, Guha is convinced NPIH will be found
negligent in the upcoming trial.

"The death should not have happened. It is impossible for them
to claim they aren’t negligent," Guha said.

He pointed to the allegation that the NPIH nurse on duty at the
time gave the younger Guha a belt which was later found around his
neck. This action was inappropriate in a mental hospital, the elder
Guha argued.

Robak empathized with the Guha family’s loss, but was critical
of what he considers their extravagant charges.

"His family has made a number of extreme allegations. Their
validity will be borne out at trial," Robak said.

Throughout the pre-trial process, there has been a pervading
animosity between the two sides in this case.

"There is an overtone and an undertone of something very close
to paranoia and certainly disagreeable hostility between the
plaintiffs and the defendant regents," Buckner said in a court
transcript.

"They’re entitled to their day in court. They’re not entitled to
this vicious paranoia," Buckner said.CHARLES KUO/Daily Bruin

A lawsuit implicating the UCLA Neuropsychiatic Institute and
Hospital in a patient’s suicide is currently scheduled to go to
trial in February.

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]