Mercy, Lorain dispute should have been resolved sooner

Talking earlier would have been cheaper than settling later. But talking wasn't the path Lorain County prosecutors, Lorain city officials, police officers and the staff of Mercy Health Lorain took when it came to resolving their dispute over whether to perform a body cavity search for suspected drugs in August. Instead, they all dug in their heels, and the end result was that Lorain will shell out $75,000 to the hospital to settle a lawsuit Mercy filed late last year. The cost of the settlement, which the Lorain Board of Control approved Monday, will be covered by the city's insurance company, but it still shouldn't have come to that. Before we delve into the settlement details, it's important to recall how the parties found themselves in this predicament in the first place. On Aug. 10, Lorain police arrested a man whom they came to suspect had a "baggy" of drugs secreted in his rectum. Officers reported seeing the baggy partially sticking out. Police obtained a search warrant to remove the object, whatever it was. The man was taken to Mercy, where he gave consent to have a CT scan, which revealed that there was something in his rectum. The scan, however, didn't reveal whether it was stool or a foreign object. The suspect refused to consent to the object being removed, which led Mercy staff to monitor his bowel movements. (The hospital doesn't appear to have found anything illegal in his stool.) Two days after the man was arrested, officers returned to the hospital with a second search warrant that ordered a body cavity search. According to the hospital, doctors refused to conduct the search because of concerns that the procedure could have injured the suspect. That led to a phone argument between Police Chief Jim McCann and hospital President Dr. Gil Palmer. (Mercy insisted that McCann had threatened to arrest Palmer. McCann denied he had made such a threat.) County prosecutors later asked a county judge to hold the hospital and doctors involved in contempt of court. (The contempt request was dismissed in March around the time the settlement was reached. The full details of the agreement weren't released until this week.) In November, McCann revoked permission for Mercy to operate its own police department, over what he contended were problems with how the department was operating. Mercy sued over all of this on Dec. 31, arguing that the demands to perform the body cavity search would have violated not only its religious beliefs — Mercy is a Catholic hospital — but potentially endangered the life of the suspect. It also contended that McCann had retaliated against the hospital by canceling permission to run its police department, an allegation the chief denied. However, the settlement restored, effective May 8, the hospital's police department under a new set of rules that address at least some of the concerns McCann had raised. (McCann is on paid administrative leave while he is under investigation over what appear to be unrelated matters.) For example, the chief had complained that Mercy officers weren't forwarding their reports to the Lorain Police Department. The agreement requires Mercy officers to use LPD's records management system, including inputting arrest reports. Mercy officers also will be required to use LPD's radio system, which should improve communications between the two departments. Those are reasonable expectations, as are requirements that all Mercy officers undergo a background check and meet other conditions before starting work. Likewise, the settlement terms for handling body cavity searches are common sense. When police want a body cavity search, they must obtain a search warrant and present it to hospital staff who will then seek to get a suspect's informed consent. Additionally, the new rules allow Mercy staff to decide whether a body cavity search adheres to medical standards of care or whether it would violate the hospital's ethical or religious directives. If that happens, the hospital will contact its lawyers who will formally assert any conscience-based objections. Medical staff wouldn't be subject to civil, criminal or administrative liability for asserting such objections. Just as important is that the police would be required to accept less invasive techniques such as a CT scan or observing suspects. Had those rules been in place in August, all those involved wouldn't have found themselves locked in an escalating feud that threatened to derail important working relationships. While the settlement appears to have struck the right chords, the parties involved could have avoided a lot of disharmony had they sat down and sorted out the dispute when it first cropped up. That would have saved all involved plenty of time and money.