Plaintiffs' Memorandum and Affidavit in Opposition to Motion of Defendant for Reconsideration of Order; Affidavit

     [||949a3675-de40-40a2-95a5-d003a5b0f093||] i 

{ 
! 
{ 

| 
{| 
it 

{ 
| 

| 
1 

| 

{ 

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

  

BERNICE TERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Ve : NO. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 2 

et al., 

Defendants. 

  

  

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, : 

7. : NO. BR 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., : 

ek al. : 

Defendants. 

(
1
 

o
e
 

(1
 

] 
[X
J 

  

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM AND AFFIDAVIT IN 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANT 

METHODIST HOSPITAL FOR RECONSIDERATION 

"ue OF THIS COURT'S ORDER DATED 

DECEMBER 7, 1977 

By order dated December 7, 1977 this Court set the above- 

captioned cases for trial on March 13, 1978 and granted plain- 

tiffs’ motion for bifurcation of the issues for trial of 

|! violation of the law and remedy. By motion dated December 20, 

1977, and received by Beth J. Lief, counsel for plaintiffs, 
1 

| December 30, 1977, defendant Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. 

requests for reconsideration of this Court's order. Plaintiffs now 

  

i 1/ See accompanying affidavit of Beth J. Lief. 

 



  

if 

respond to the arguments proffered by defendants in support of 

lltheir motion. 

(Ll) Increased Cost of Construction. | 
  

Although defendants assert through the affidavit of 

  Bruce Sayers, counsel for Methodist Hospital, that construction 

|costs will increase over $200,000.00 because of the March 13, 1978 

trial date, defendants have supplied absolutely no documentation 

to substantiate this statement. Rather than attach a detailed 

affidavit by the hospital's architects, defendants submit self- 

serving hearsay statements by an attorney. 

  Secondly, delays in implementation of these projects 

have occurred mainly as a result of the hospital's own inactions. 

The proposals for Health Services Buildings at Gary Methodist 

Hospital and Broadway Methodist Hospital, and for the removal of 

the laundry from Gary Methodist Hospital to Broadway Methodist | 

Hospital were first approved by the Northwest Indiana Comprehensive 

Health Planning Council, Inc., and the Indiana State Board of Health 

in 1974. Under Sectiom 1122 of the Social Security Act,   Methodist Hospital had to incur a binding obligation within one 

| 
year after approval. Methodist Hospital did not do so and the ap- |   
proval was subsequently withdrawn. Only in 1976, two years after 

the first proposal, did Methodist Hospital revise its application 

and renew its request for approval. See attached as "Exhibit A," 

Staff Analysis of the Projects by the Northern Indiana Health     fusions Agency, Inc., (HSA) dated August 8, 1976, p. 3, received 

I a : . : 
by plaintiffs from the HSA in response to interrogatories. Inas~- 
{ 

much as defendants' own inaction delayed their projects for two 

years, Methodist Hospital cannot now expect to cut off plaintiffs’ 

    
 



  

rights under the law for full discovery by opposing a two-month 

| 

continuance of the trial date. Such an expectation is especially 
| 

unjustified where, as here, the major financing of the projects is| 

{ 
{ 

sought through federal funding. 

  i Thirdly, defendants purposely have failed to inform this| 

i! | 

| court that they are solely responsible for any delay as to the | 

construction of the Health Services Building in Gary. The pro- 

posal for the Health Services Building in Gary, estimated to 

2/ 
cost $3,281,370 is a separate proposal from the proposal to con- 

  struct a Health Services Building at Broadway Methodist Hospital 

and to remove the laundry from Gary Methodist Hospital to Broadway, 

| 

Methodist Hospital. At the request of Methodist Hospital, not 
  

| plaintiffs, HEW treated the two proposals as one "package" and 

indicated that the construction "package" should not proceed. 

Methodist Hospital, however, has continually misrepresented this 
{ 

fact, as well as the fact that the complaints in Terry v. | 
  

Methodist Hospital, et al., and Hatcher v. Methodist Hospital, et 
  
  

al., do not request an injunction to prevent the construction at 

Gary Methodist Hospital. 

By letter dated September 92, 1977, at the request of Beth yg 

Lief, counsel for plaintiffs, the Associate Director for Policy, 

Planning and Research, Office for Civil Rights, informed the ad- 

ministrator of Methodist Hospital that the hospital was "free to 

separate the construction proposals and seek HEW approval to go 

    2/ See Exhibit A, p. 3.   
 



  

  
    

forward at the Gary eel The Associate Director wrote that | 

while HEW "cannot definitively state that such a request would be | 

granted until it is made, OCR's approval of construction at St. 

4/ 
Catherine Hospital in East Chicago is instructive." As the 

Court is most probably aware, St. Catherine Hospital is located 

in an urban area, sought and received approval to proceed with 

its construction plans. Yet, despite knowledge that it could 

seek separate approval for the Gary project, despite the refer- 

ence in HEW's letter to a project that was approved, despite the | 

fact that the Gary project will house a Family Practice Residency, 

Methodist Hospital refuses to attempt to proceed with the build- | 

ing until — if not unless — it obtains approval for its more | 

expensive counterpart at its suburban facility. Defendants’ 

posture substantially undermines their contention that the hospi- 

tal is committed to maintaining a quality health care facility in 

the inner-city. And it completely establishes that over one- 

third of whatever expenses are occasioned by a March 13, 1978 

trial date is solely the result of the hospital's own decision. 

(2) The Effect of the March, 1978 Trial Date on the 

Morale of Hospital Emplovees. 
  

The affidavit of william B. Davis .is, at best, self- 
i 
i 

serving, undocumented speculatioa and in no way supports anything, 

particularly the bold statement at p. 2 of defendants' motion 

  

3/ See letter attached as Exhibit B to this memorandum. 

1 4/ Id., p. 1, last sentence. 

 



| . » 

  

that "the hospital faces a genuine dilemna concerning the con- 

tinued employment of key employees and continued utilization by | 

| the staff of the hospital.” | 

| | 
The affidavit of Mr. Davis at paragraph 5 does not even | 

| : | 
{ 
| state that any health professionals even know of the March 13, | 

| 1978 trial date. Rather, the paragraph contains the self-serving | 

prediction that "the doctors, nurses, and professional staff 

associated with Methodist Hospital of Gary, InC., . « | 

upon hearing of a second continuance will react adversely to | 

| 
A i 

i! Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc., and hence to the Gary community. 

(emphasis added). The affidavit proceeds at paragraph 6 to state: 

"a second continuance of this action may 

jeopardize medical care in the Gary community 

as doctors, nurses, and health care profession- 

als associated with Methodist Hospital of Gary, 

Inc., may decide that the provision of health 
care at the Methodist Hospital facilities is 

in jeopardy . . . and may likewise decree that | 

their future will be better served at other 

medical institutions . . . .* 

The evidentiary weight of this statement is nil. Not a single 

employee's name is mentioned; not a single concrete statement is | 

included in the entire affidavit. There is no mention of any 

survey of health personnel or even of why, if at all, the per- 

sonnel may believe what Mr. Davis' affidavit states they may be- 

lieve. The remainder of the affidavit is equally absent of any 

support for other speculation it contains. 

(3) The Alleged Delinquency of Plaintiffs' Discovery. 
    

At pages 2-3 of their motion, defendants state: 

| ". «. « the plaintiffs herein have been 
delinquent in beginning discovery and 
dilatorious in the discovery process 

| to the point of delay. They have created 

| a crisis and asked the Court to extricate 
| them from a very demanding discovery sched- 

| ule . . . plaintiffs have again delayed 

| depositions which had been set during the 
weeks of December 12 and 19, 1977." 

a   
 



  

  

  

    

Inasmuch as this Court receives Notices of Deposition filed by 

plaintiffs, and is aware of the expeditious manner in which dis- 

covery has proceeded, the discovery schedule will not be reitera- 

ted. Quite simply, plaintiffs’ only reaction to this statement is | 

one of outrage. Since the first week of October, 1977, when de- 

fendants began to file some of their answers to plaintiffs’ in- 

terrogatories dated May, 1977, plaintiffs have pressed discovery 

with the greatest feasible speed. Moreover, defendants are fully 

aware of the reason for the postponement of depositions scheduled 

for the week of December 12, 1977. Asthe attached affidavit of 

Beth J. Lief, counsel for plaintiffs, states, the deposition of 

Mr. R. B. Glesne, Administrator of Methodist Hospital was sched- 

uled for December 6 and 7, 1977, and be taken by Ms. Lief who was | 

tremely ill with a sore throat, cold and fever. Counsel for HEW, | 

Ms. Ross, was also ill. when the parties learned of the Court's 

{ 

| 

order dated December 7, 1977, the deposition was adjourned — with 

consent of all counsel — and scheduled to be completed for the 

following week. The other depositions scheduled for the week of 

December 12, 1977 were adjourned so that the deposition of Mr. 

Glesne could be completed. 

! 

| 

| { 

i 
} 
{ 

| 

In addition, when counsel for Methodist Hospital learned 

of this Court's order on December 7, 1977, they adjourned dis- 

cussions with other parties to have a conference as to how to 

| 

proceed. After approximately five minutes, counsel for Methodist 

Hospital re-entered the room and announced to counsel for plain- 

tiffs and HEW that they would not file any opposition to the 

Court's order concerning the trial date and bifurcation of issues 

 



i » 

  

  

| On the basis of that statement, a reasonable, albeit very busy 

|| deposition schedule was modified. 
| ' 

(4) Effect of the Stipulation Entered Into Between the 

Parties as to the Trial Date and Bifurcation of the 

Issues at Trial. 
  

The stipulation entered into between the parties does 

| 3/ 
not only "purport" to alleviate the necessity of the hospital's 

seeking additional approval under Section 1122 as to the Health 

Services Buildings and Laundry; it does. The alleged "other" | 

damages are addressed earlier in this memorandum. 

The reasons proffered by plaintiffs and adopted by this 

Court for bifurcation of the issues at trial and will not be re- 
| 

iterated here. Plaintiffs only note that, as in school desegrega- 
| 

tion cases, the order to remedy past violations (e.g., to inte- 

| 
grate a segregated and unequal system) often requires submission | 

of a detailed plan following proof at trial. It is this type of | 

plan that should await the initial stages of trial in these 

actions. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion of Defendants | 

Methodist Hospital and Denis Ribordy for Reconsideration of the 

| 
Court's Order dated December 7, 1977 should be denied. | 

Respectfully submitted, 
ae | { 

Fat i Od i §. ] 
y a Vr 3d | on if { ) {A | Tg Fore 

JACK GREENBERG | 
BETH J. LIEF | 
BRENT SIMMONS 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, N.Y. 10019 

  

JULIAN B. ALLEN 

2009 Broadway 

Gary, Indiana 46410   
Counsel for Plaintiffs 

  

| 5/ See Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, 5, p. 3. 

ly 0   
 



  

      . 
. 

4 3] b       
JORTHERN INDIANA HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY 

900 East Colfax, South Bend, Indiana 

STATY ANALYSIS (ait 
COVER SHEET : 

  

  om 

PROJECT NUMBER 

76-W-02       
J 

  

  

Title of Applicatio..: Health Services Buildings - Gary/Broadway Laundry - Broadway 

  

Name Of Applicant: Di Methodist Hospital 
  

  
    

  
  

  

  
  

  

Address: : a ny . 
: 600 Grant Street City: gary Stace: ty Zip’ pans 
Yotal cost of Project: $8,143,370 Amount Requested: 

Subarea: Ca Ta NC HD nb ae na J COM LY 2 Lake 

Type of Application: 

Sec, 1122 X Use of Federal Funds 
  

New Institutional Health Service {Cert: of Roed) 
  

Other (Speciiy)   

  

Type of Review: 

New X 
Continuation 
  

  

X 

er ao ——— aye = = 

Substantive 

Non Substantive... 
  

  

Prepared By: Peter W. Teitelman 

ERT CAC SI can uy Sree ay a oon a or me ao 

Date: 8/2/76 

  

Approved By: Kipton Kaplan Date: 8/2/76 -   
  

Staff Recommendaiion: 

Approve 

liisapprove 

Other 

  

  

  

Suggested Conditions (if any): 

  
  

      

utilized in reviewing projects by Hezlih Systems Agencies: 

  
  

Criterion Summary. of S:aff Yindinon 
  

  Ra 

}.. Pelationship to HSP and AP Meets three National Health Priorities, which 
are part of Interim HSP. 
  

72. ‘Relationship to long-range plan of 

applicant 
not address. Broadway Health Service Building.   

3. keed {for proposed. scrvices 

Consistant with long range plans re Gary Health 
Services Bldg. & Laundry. Long range plan does 

Documented for all components - See narrative 

  

hi, Availability of less costly or more 

effective alternatives 

Proposal is most effective alternative for Healt 
Services Buildings. Alternatives to Taundry prop 
are still under consideration. 

  

5. Tmmediate and Jong-term financial 
feasibility 

/ ’ 

Financially feasible without unreasonable incres 
in patient change structure. 

  

ah
) 

. Relationship to existing health care 
system 

  

TillSA Form PI-4 5115 

  
109 

BIBT "An 

Does not unnecessarily duplicate service with 
possible exception of laundry. Shawed laundry   J services should be further evaluated. 

=>
 

osa 

Se   
  

e
y
 

  

 



  

°>
 

STAFF ANALYSIS 
COVER SHEET 

PAGE TWO 

   
  

  

Criterion 

  

  

Sumnary of Staff Findings 
  

  

Availability of resources (manpower, 
mcnagement personnel, capital and 

trp are fonda) 

   

L] 

Manpower resources are adequate in general 

No recruitment plan for family practice 

_residency Medical Director & residents   

   

     

  

  

8. Relationship to aucillary or support 
services s 

Y. Special needs of institutions or pro- 

    

rams serving 

¢ither in the 

persons who do not reside 

HIUSA or adjacent USA's 
   
   

  

: 
pr Not applicable, as entire application deal 

with ancillary & support services. See 
 Lriteviop #3 

J 

    

      

Not applicable 
  

at HMO's 

  

Special needs         
   Not applicable 
  

ils Special needs of research projects    
   

    

Not applicable 
  

For construction projects 

construction costs and methods 

sapact construction costs on the rate 

   
of    

SEructure 

    

    

    

   

  

Yor Inpatient facilities: 

avillabilicty of less costly, more effecient 

or more appropriate alternatives : 

Appropriate wiilization of sinilar facilities 
Consideration of alternatives 

slruciion 

Problems to patients in obtaining care if 
not undertaken : 

  

   
to new con- 

  

    

  

    

a) Cost per square foot of $95 is reasonab 
b) See Criterion #5 per state Board of 

Health 

a) See Criterion #4 

b) Not applicable 
c) See Criterion #4 

d) Certain outpatient and health education 
services will not be accessible.       

   



  

«Fe 

INTRODUCTION 
  

Methodist Hospital proposes to construct the following facilities: 

  
    

Square Cost/ 
Building Site Components Feet Cost Square foot 

Health Services Gary Meth- 1) Ambulatory Care 31,720 $3,281,370 $103 
Building odist hos- 2) Family Practice . 

pital Residency 

Health Services Broadway 1) Ambulatory Care 39,000 $3,599,800 $92 
Building Methodist 2) Admitting Center 

‘Hospital 3) Health Education 
4) Hospital-Base 

Physicians Offices 

Laundry Broadway Laundry Building 15,444 $1,262,200 $82 
Methodist & Equipment 
Hospital 

TOTAL 
  

  

86,164 $8,143,370 $95 

The proposal was initially reviewed and approved under Section 1122 by Northwest 
Indiana Comprehensive Health Planning Council, Inc, and the State Board of Health 
in 1974. Because the applicant did not incur a binding obligation within one 
year after approval by the State Board of Health, approval was withdrawn and the 
applicant was asked to update the application. The attached proposal is a summary 
of the updated and revised application. 

  

Relationship to HSP and AIP 

The proposal address itself to three of the national health priorities which are 
incorporated into thelnterim Health Systems Plan; 

1) The provision of primary care services for medically underserved populations, 
2) The promotion of activities for the prevention of disease, and 

) The development of effective methods of educating the general public 
concerning proper health care and methods for effective use of available 
health services 

The proposal addresses these national health priorities through its planned expansion 
of outpatient clinics in Gary and health education component of the Broadway Methodist 
Health Service Building. 

 



  

Relationship to Long Range Plan of Applicant 
  

Construction of a Health Services Building at Gary Methodist Hospital and a new 
laundry are consistent with the longe range plan of the applicants and are 
included in the "Long Range Program Recommendations to the Board of Directors - 
The Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc.", dated April, 1972. Plans for construction 
of a health services building at Broadway Methodist Hospital are not included in 
this document. 

Need For Proposed Services 
  

(a) Health Services Building - Gary 
  

(1) Ambulatory Care 
  

Methodist Hospital of Gary is the only hospital in the Northwest Subarea 
which provides organized outpatient clinics. These include orthopedic, 
crippled children's, pediatric specialty (metabolism, endocrimology, 
cardiology neucology), and obstetrics. An epilepsy clinic is planned. 
Clinics are presently scattered throughout the existing hospital with 
little or no room for expansion of additional clinics. Creation of the 
new. facility will enable the hospital to provide ambulatory services 
more efficiently as well as provide for establishment of additional clinics. 

(2) Family Practice Residency 
  

There are currently no family practive residencies established in the 
Northwest Subarea. Establishment of a family practice residency program 
in Gary will help attract physicians to Gary. Adequate facilities are 
necessary in order to obtain American Medical Association approval for 
such a residency. The proposed facilities meet all AMA requirements. 

(b) Health Services Building - Broadway 
  

(1) Ambulatory Care 
  

The ambulatory care component of the Broadway Methodist Health Services 
Building was not included in the original plans for the hospital. 
Availability of outpatient diagnostic procedures and outpatient surgery 
will allow for less costly alternatives to inpatient hospitalization. 

(2) Admitting Center 
  

The Admitting Center was also not included in the original plans for 
Broadway Methodist Hospital but has been established and successful at 
Gary Methodist. The Admitting Center has been shown to reduce length 
of stay and case cost up to 25%, based on a study by the Commission 

on Professional and Hospital Activities.* This is accomplished by 
consolidating and centralizing all tests and admitting procedures as 
well as the nursing interview and record preparation. 

1 
Commission on Professional and Hospital Activities, Memorandum Report: 
The Effects of an Admitting Center on Various Components of a Health Care 
  

  

Delivery System - Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc., April 17, 1973. 

 



Ts ES 

  

(3) Health Education 
  

Educational facilities were also not included in the original plans for 
Broadway Methodist Hospital. Such facilities will be used for educational 
programs for hospital employees medical staff, patients, and community 
groups. The need for health education as established in the National 
Health priorities of P.L. 93-641 has been discussed previously. 

(4) Hospital-Based Physicians Offices 
  

The final component of the Broadway Methodist Health Sa2rvices Building 
is offices for hospital based physicians in Neurology, Physical Medicine 
and Rehabilitation, Oncology, and Nuclear Medicine. Office space was. 
not provided for these physicians in original hospital plans. Provision 
of space at Broadway Methodist Hospital will enable them to have adequate 
office locations at both Gary and Broadway Methodist. 

(c) Laundry 

The existing laundry at Gary Methodist Hospital has been determined to be 
substandard by the State Board of Health. It is not capable of meeting 
the long-term needs of both hospitals without substantial moderization 
including increasing boiler capacity. Construction of the laundry at Broadway 
Methodist, where there is adequate space and boiler capacity, will enable the 
hospital to meet its needs for laundry service. 

Availability of Less Costly or More Effective Alternatives 
  

(a) Health Services Building - Gary 
  

An alternative to the Health Services Building - Gary would be to utilize 
existing hospital space. However, hospital officials have evaluated this 
alternative and have determined that existing space is inadequate for this 
purpose. A second alternative, recommended by the Medical Center of Gary, 
would be to relocate the building across Grant Street so that it would be 
physically detached from the hospital and within the proposal Medical Center 
of Gary boundaries. This alternative is presently being explored by the hospital's 
Board of Directors and Administrative Staff. 

(b) Health Services Building - Broadway 
  

An alternative to providing the components of the Broadway Methodist Health 
Services Building which has been considered is to not construct the facility 
and utilize the Gary Admitting Center, health education facilities, ambulatory 
care facilities, and hospital-based physicians' offices within the Gary Methodist 
Hospital for all patients in both hospitals' service areas. The hospital has 
ruled out this alternative, however, because of substantial inconvenience to 
patients, physicians, and residents of the Broadway Methodist service area. 

(c) Laundry 

Consideration has been given to remodeling the laundry at Gary Methodist Hospital 
converting to disposables, utilizing commercial services, and various combinations 
of these alternatives. After evaluation, the most cost-effective alternative 
has been determined to be construction of the laundry at the Broadway site, 

 



TH rn 

  

SB 

It should be noted however, that, in the initial review process in 1974, shared 
laundry service with other hospitals being pursued. Both St. Mary Medical Center 
and St. Margaret Hospital has expressed interest in utilizing Methodist's laundry. 
The applicant, however, did not pursue thisalternative and subsequently reduced 
the size of the Taundry so that it can only accommodate its own laundry needs. 
The staff feels the applicant “should reconsider this alternative.” In addition, the 
applicant has agreed to consider constructing the laundry at Gary Methodist Hospi tal 
in relation to load factors between the two hospitals, sources of labor, boiler 
capacities, cost factors, and the impact of shared laundry service. 

  

Immediate and Long Term Financial Feasibility 
  

The project is to be financed primarily through a loan guaranteed under the Hill-Burton 
program of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Interest subsidies of 3% 
and grant monies have also been allocated to this project under the same program. 
Sources of funds are summarized below: 

Health Services 

    

      

Health Services Building - Broadway %» of 
Source Building - Gary and Laundry : Total Total 

Hil1-Burton Grant $ 215,396 $ 276,177 $ 491,573 6.0 
Loan* 2,511,604 3,522,395 6,034,499 74.1 
Internal Opera- 554,370 1,062,928 1,617,293 10.9 
tions/cash/securities 

TOTAL $3,281,370 $ 4,862,000 $8,143,370 100.0 

*Guaranteed by DHEW and includes 3% interest subsidy. 

The total charges per patient day attributable to this project are $3.47. However, 
this is based on the assumption of no revenue. Revenue generated by the ambulatory 
care component of the project may enable the hospital to reduce or eliminate this 
debt service expense from the patient charge structure. 

Hi1l-Burton funds, originally to have expired on June 30, 1976, have been extended 
through September 30, 1976. The Indiana State Board of Health has recommended these. 
funds be approved. | 

Based on the above, the project appears to be financially feasible and will not 
unreasonably affect the hospital's rate structure. 

Relationship to Existing. Health Care System 
  

As discussed previously, several the components of the project are (or will be) within 
the Northwest Subarea - specifically, the organized outpatient clinics and family 
practice residency and complement the existing health care system. Other components, 
such as ambulatory care at Broadway, health education, and hospital based physicians’ 
offices gre duplicative of other hospitals in the area but are not unnecessarily 
duplicatgve, as they are essential components of hospital operation. The building of 
a laundry, however, without further attempts to provide laundry service for other 
interested institutions, could result in an unnecessary duplication of service. 

 



TY IE rm 

  

~~ 7 

  

Availability of Resources 

Staff requirements for this project are minimal and it is anticipated that there 
will be no major difficulties in recruiting additional personnel for ambulatory 
care, health education, and the laundry. However, there is not adequate 
documentation to determine whether recruitment of a medical director and residents 
for the Family Residency program will be effective. 

Management personnel are currently employed. Capital and operating funds have 
been discussed previously. 

 



  

Mr. R. 

EXHIBIT "B" Zk ct Didironnn 
DEPARTME. .T_OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AN. WELFARE Fu Ay 

pt IED | 

  

  

B. Glesne, Administrator 

Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. 
600 Grant Street 
Gary, Indiana 45402 

Pear Mr. Glesne: 

“The attached newspaper article has been brought to our 
attention Ly one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in 
the consolidated cases of Terry, et al. v. Methodist Fospital 
of Gary, Inc., et al., who has requested that IEW clarify 

    

  

its position and confirm that the neELapar story is 
inaccurate insofar as it suggests that "as a result of 
plaintiffs’ lawsiits in Terry and Hatcher, and HEW action, 
that the expansirm at Gary Methodist Fospital will not 
proceed.” the a ctorney for the plaintiffs states that 
she feels this is not accurate "since it was Methodist 
Hospital itself! that requested that the separtte applications 
for the expansion at Gary Methodist Fospital and Broackay 
Methodist Hospital be treated similarly, and as a favor! 
to them HEY agread.” 

‘We are wmable, o! course, to make any statement with 
respect to the irpact of the lawsuits upon Gary Methodist 
Hospital's constuction plans. Whether any or all of the 
planned construction would have gone forward in the absence 
of the August 12, 1977 letter fram the Director of the 
Office for Civil rights to Lake County hospital administrators 
and related actions by this Department is somathing which 
only you and you:® Board know. 

Te do wish to make it clear, however, that the letter was 
mot intended to prevent Methodist Iospital of Gary, Inc. fram 
requesting HEW approval for construction at the Gary site. 
Vhile you have earlier indicated to us that you wished the 
Gary and lerrillville construction to be treated as a 
single package——and we have, accordingly, indicated that 
constriction "package" should not go forward in accordance 
with our August 12 letter—the hospital corporation remains 
free to separate the construction Amy and seek HW 
approval to go forward at the Gary site. While we cant 
indicate Gelinguienty that such a requast would be granted 
kil 

_— TT —————....... 

  

[E | L a Cal 

COPY 

i+ jo Ca ory round of construction. ak 
OF Fig DATE ,] QEFICE SURNAME | DATE | OFFICE SURNAME DATE | 
Pe frye GF Len in   

ICE Ng 1 

QE) ids > sop 7 E5: ns 5as-Chaoan 

GX |G: de RTT 9g + ! - 
  

vi 
                    
  

  

 



  

rt 

| - — =DUCATION, A 

Y that the Proposed office 

building rentioned in the NEwSpapey article hag 

Presanteg 3 Office by Methodig lospital of Gary, 

It is among tha Construction Plans irclided in tha 

"package with Me 1lville which Previously been 

SCusseq vA th the offi for civiy Rights, Therefore, 

the articie is ine to thig extent 

Sincerely Yours, 

LLlach He id Associate Director gop Poli 
Search 

nt rs SS ay Office for Civil Rights 

INS rn skim 
a 

    

Ne 
0h - 

“ LL 

ad 

™ WELFARE 

, : 

  
I
E
S



  
    

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

    
BERNICE TERRY, et al., : 

  

  

Plaintiffs, : | 

Vv. NO. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., : 

et al., . 

Defendants. 

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, } 

Ve NO. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

    AFFIDAVIT 

Beth J. Lief, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

l. I am counsel for plaintiffs in the above-entitled 

ao 

actions and file this affidavit in opposition to Defendants’   
Motion For Reconsideration. 

2. The deposition of Mr. R. B. Glesne, Administrator of 

\ | 
i 

Methodist Hospital, was scheduled for December 6 and 7, 1977. 

This deposition did occur on those dates, although I was extremely 

ill with a sore throat, cold and fever. Indeed, Mr. Glesne per- 

sonally offered to take me to the emergency room of Methodist 

: : 
Hospital because I was so apparently ill. Counsel for HEW, Ms. | 

Rebecca Ross was also ill. On December 7, 1977, the parties 

 



  
    

learned of this Court's Order which scheduled the trial date for 

March 13, 1978 and granted plaintiffs' motion for bifurcation of 

the issues at trial. When the parties learned of this decision, 

the deposition of Mr. Glesne was adjourned, with the consent of 

all counsel, including counsel from Methodist Hospital and was 

scheduled to be completed the following week. I returned to New 

York City that evening and was bedridden until the following 

Tuesday morning, when I flew back to Gary, Indiana to continue 

the deposition of Mr. Glesne. It was because of my illness and 

the illness of Ms. Ross that the depositions previously scheduled 

for the week of December 12, 1977 was adjourned in order that the 

deposition of Mr. Glesne could be completed that week. 

3. On December 7, 1977, when counsel for Methodist 

Hospital learned of this Court's Order, they adjourned proceed- 

ings with the other Parties to these actions in order to have a 

conference as to how to proceed in view of this Court's Order. 

After approximately five minutes, counsel for Methodist Hospital 

re-entered the room and announced to me and to other attorneys 

present, including counsel for HEW, that they would not file any 

opposition to the Court's Order concerning the trial date and 

bifurcation of the issues. On the basis of their pronouncement, 

it was agreed by all counsel that the deposition schedule, which 

was clearly taxing my health, and possibly that of other counsel, 

would be modified to be expeditious, but reasonable. Depositions 

are now scheduled for every week in January, except for the first | 

week in January. Depositions of doctors had been noticed by HEW 

for the first week in January, but were postponed by the request 

of HEW. Depositions of Denis Ribordy and Everett Johnson were 

De 

  

   



  
  

held the week of December 2%, There were no depositions the week 

of December 19 because I was ordered to appear in court on 

Wednesday of that week on approximately eight motions in a case 

filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In addition, Ms. 

Ross, counsel for HEW, was engaged in a lawsuit, NAACP v. 
  

{IWilmington Medical Center. 
  

4, I received defendantdMotion For Reconsideration on 

December 30,1977. 

Respectfully submitted, 

A 

px Nhs | ALAA 
  

-Beth J. Lief 

sworn to before me this J. .¢ day 

of January, 1978. 

247 Pe 7 

L tr 7p ? har, - 
wil rrl. Lf ¢ re RE 

Notary Public 
  

Na. 247113050 Qualiliad In Kings County thacch 30, 1977 
&9fifission tXpireg 

  
  

    
 



  

Certificate of Service 
  

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing 

Plaintiffs' Memorandum and Affidavit in Opposition to 
  

Motion of Defendant Methodist Hospital for Reconsidera- 
  

tion of This Court's Order Dated December 7, 1977. 
  

was served by United States mail, postage prepaid, on 

2:4 ™\ 2 : 

the i, day of -iwAl dA . 1973, on counsel for 
  

\/ 
AY 

defendants as follows: 

Rebecca L. Ross, Esq. 
Department of Justice 
10th and Pennsylvania Avenue 
Washington D.C. 

Marvin G. Garvin, Esg. and Edward L. Koven, 
Regional Attorney and General Attorney 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
300 South Wacker Drive, 18th Floor 
Chicago, 1llinois 

Fred W. Grady, Esq. 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Northern District of Indiana 
Federal Building, 502 State Street 
Hammond, Indiana 46325 

Attorneys for Defendant Secretary of Health, 
Education and Welfare 

Hodges, Davis, Gruenberg, Compton & Sayers 

Bruce E. Sayers, Esq. 

5525 Broadway 
Gary, Indiana 46401 

Attorneys for Defendant Methodist Hospital 
of Gary, Inc. 

Theodore L. Sendak, Esq. 
Assistant Attorney General of Indiana 
219 State House 
Indianapolis, Indiana 

Attorneys for State Defendants 

£ | KR / 

LY delyad 

Esq. 

  

Frm Si 

Counsel for Plaintiffs [||949a3675-de40-40a2-95a5-d003a5b0f093||]