The court has denied the motion for preliminary injunction, citing the administrative action Attorney General Todd Rokita filed against Dr. Caitlin Bernard to the Indiana Medical Licensing Board.
“Once a complaint is deemed meritorious and has been submitted to the licensing board, that board is deemed to have jurisdiction over the matter,” states the court’s order.
The court did add the following:
“However, the Court does find that the Attorney General did violate the licensing statue’s confidentiality provision by discussing the statutorily confidential investigation in statements to the media until the filing of a complaint with the Medical Licensing Board against Dr. Bernard on November 30, 2022,” the order states.
INDIANAPOLIS — The attorney for Dr. Caitlin Bernard has filed a motion for preliminary injunction asking the court to block Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita from accessing her patient’s medical records, citing the “irreparable harm that could be done” to patients should their medical records be disclosed.
The emergency motion filed Wednesday is a follow-up to the lawsuit filed last week, which asserts that Rokita ignored Indiana law and issued subpoenas for medical records based on complaints from people who have never been a patient of Dr. Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, or her medical partner Dr. Amy Caldwell, who lack any personal knowledge of their work and that provide no explanation of their validity.
Rokita vowed to investigate Dr. Bernard for performing an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim who traveled from Ohio to Indiana to seek an abortion after the Buckeye State banned abortions after six weeks following the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Kathleen DeLaney, counsel to Dr. Bernard and her partner, Dr. Amy Caldwell, issued the following statement Wednesday in regards to the motion for preliminary injunction:
“Today we are filing a Motion for Preliminary Injunction asking that the court grant relief because of the risk of imminent harm that these baseless investigations and subpoenas pose to our clients and their patients. There is a serious risk that patient identities could be disclosed to the public, which could subject them to harassment based on their most sensitive medical information.
“Furthermore, should this investigation continue, it could create an environment where future patients will be unable to access legal and safe medical care without fear that complete strangers will read their medical records. We hope the court will act swiftly, both to protect our clients and their patients, but to protect any person seeking medical care. Patients must be able to share with their doctors all information necessary for treatment without fear that politicians will obtain their medical records for improper purposes.”
Rokita’s office released a statement in response:
“Patient privacy is the foundation of medical ethics, and although the doctor’s newfound concern for her patients’ privacy is appreciated, albeit ironic, we will proceed to seek the truth no matter the attempts to push her narrative.”