News and Analysis

Virginia Hospital Found In Contempt Of Court, Subject To $10k Per Day Fines After Denying Patient Ivermectin

   DailyWire.com
tablet of ivermectin arranged in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Thursday, Sept. 2, 2021.
Dimas Ardian/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Chris Davies and his father Donald have been fighting for their mother and wife Kathy Davies’ right to try the drug Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment at Fauquier Health hospital in Warrenton, Virginia, for the past few weeks. But the hospital — where Chris happens to work as a radiologic technologist — had put his mother through a series of legal hoops seemingly designed to block the treatment from being given to her.

On Monday, December 13, Virginia’s 20th Judicial Court found Fauquier Health in contempt of court after refusing to comply with previous orders and ruled that by 9:00 p.m. Eastern time tonight, Kathy Davies must be given the dose of Ivermectin as prescribed by a doctor retained by the Davies family. Additionally — if the hospital did not comply — the state had the right to fine the hospital $10,000 per day. That order would have been applied retroactively from December 9 onwards. The court also ordered that the Davies family be given police escort if necessary to administer the drug to their mother.

But, the court also said that the hospital had an opportunity to purge the contempt charge by complying with the order. The hospital is reportedly now opting to comply with that order after a week of arguing why they could not allow the drug to be given to Kathy Davies as the family requested.

In a statement Wednesday, December 15, Fauquier Health said the outside physician procured by the family did not have privileges to practice at the hospital, and that they couldn’t allow a physician not on their staff to administer medication. “Doing so would violate standard hospital practice and Virginia law,” said the hospital.

The hospital also said they believed they “navigated” the complexities of the situation “as swiftly as possible and have remained in compliance with standard hospital practice, including federal and state regulations, throughout this matter.” They also said they “proactively took steps above and beyond” the family’s and the court’s requests.

The Davies’ story offers hope for legal respite for many families who have found themselves in similar situations while trying to battle a medical establishment arguably opposed to any treatment not supported by the FDA to fight COVID-19.

The Davies’ saga started in October when Chris Davies’ mother was admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. She was placed on a ventilator in the intensive care unit (ICU) on November 3. Donald was to serve as her medical proxy — and after consultation with Chris and his siblings — wanted doctors to give Kathy Ivermectin in hopes of finding success against COVID-19.

The doctors and hospital refused that request and were adamant they would not administer the drug despite the family’s wishes. On December 3, the Davies family notified Fauquier Health that they were hiring attorneys on Kathy’s behalf and filing a lawsuit.

“Pray we get a compassionate judge and that litigation goes smoothly,” Chris emailed friends supporting his mother on December 5. “We just want the right to try Ivermectin!”

“Let us pray we can get it to her and it will help her out of this long-suffering!!” he added. “Thanks all and God Bless!!!”

On Monday, December 6, according to a court document obtained by The Daily Wire, the court had ruled that Kathy had the right under Virginia law to try Ivermectin or any other order and prescription provided by Dr. Martha Maturi — the doctor retained by the Davies family who had prescribed Ivermectin — regardless of her employment with the hospital.

But, when Chris and a registered nurse went to administer the drug on the night of December 7 on the orders of Maturi, “hospital administration barred [him and the nurse] from entering the ICU with the Ivermectin.”

According to Chris, the hospital’s “COO Kevin Sales and CNO Christine Hart Kress stopped [them] with [the] original court order.”

While Chris had the Ivermectin in hand, he says that Kress “threatened to report the nurse to the medical board to revoke her license” because “she was not an employee of the hospital.”

The hospital told Chris they had filed for another emergency hearing to be held on December 8.

On December 9, Judge James P. Fisher of the 20th Judicial Court of Virginia ruled — according to another document obtained by The Daily Wire — that Maturi had the right to give Chris’s mom Ivermectin under Virginia law, stating that “this court finds it unnecessary to descend into an analysis of the merits of Ivermectin as a treatment protocol” and that the hospital must make a “reasonable effort” to transfer care to Maturi.

The order continued, noting that the hospital’s arguments against admitting Maturi into the hospital were not sufficient.

Davies attorney Ralph Lorigo argued that “all reasonable effort” regarding Ivermectin meant three things: 1. Prescription of medicine, 2. Administration of medicine, and 3. Taking any calls relating to Ivermectin and the patient.

Hospital attorneys reportedly agreed to grant Maturi admitting privileges under those conditions.

But on Friday, Maturi spent hours answering questions about malpractice insurance, references, and other forms that the hospital said were necessary before allowing to see the patient. The hospital waited until 3:30 pm on Friday, December 10, to let Davies’ attorneys know that they were not going to admit Maturi into the hospital despite the court order.

Davies attorneys discussed the matter with the hospital attorneys on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday as to why Maturi could not receive privileges. The hospital said that if Maturi were to administer Ivermectin, she would have to take complete control over the patient. They essentially said that no doctor or nurse employed by the hospital would assist in taking care of the patient.

This made no sense to Davies’ attorneys or family for a variety of reasons, chief among them that one doctor is never in charge of the patient, but rather a team of doctors, specialists, and nurses care for the patient.

This was yet another three days that Chris’s mother would not receive the drug. Since the hospital had denied the Davies family the right to give Ivermectin to Kathy on Friday afternoon, an emergency hearing would have to wait until Monday morning.

In response, Davies’s attorneys argued in court on Monday that the hospital had been unreasonable in their efforts to care for the patient, Kathy Davies, and should be held in contempt of court.

Judge Fisher agreed and ruled on Monday that the hospital could appeal the order, comply, or face the 10k per day fines.

Lorigo said that after several hours of trying to ask for “clarification” on the matter, Fauquier Health finally complied with the ruling. Hospital administrators even let Chris and his father know that they found a registered nurse who could assist Dr. Maturi deliver the Ivermectin.

As of press time, Chris and Maturi were traveling to Fauquier Health with Ivermectin in hand to finally deliver it to his mother in hopes of helping her defeat COVID-19.

This article has been updated to include comment from Fauquier Health. Full statement below: 

Fauquier Health’s top priority is to provide safe, high-quality care to the patients we serve, which includes the protection of their privacy. 

We would like to correct the misinformation regarding the family who disagreed with the clinical course of treatment recommended by our physicians for their family member. As outlined in the court documents, a patient’s family filed a petition seeking to compel our hospital to administer medication prescribed by an outside physician. This physician had no privileges to practice medicine at our hospital.  

Like other hospitals, Fauquier Health is unable to administer medications to our patients without a valid order from a physician on our medical staff. Doing so would violate standard hospital practice and  Virginia law. That said, our team has worked around the clock to cooperate with the patient’s family and the Court to identify potential viable solutions, including to make a reasonable attempt to transfer the  patient’s care to their preferred physician, which has since happened.  

Hospitals are bound by rules and regulations that govern how we operate to ensure that we administer care safely to our patients. From a legal and regulatory standpoint, we must always follow the appropriate steps to credential and privilege physicians to practice medicine at our facilities – this is to protect patients and ensure the consistent delivery of quality care. 

Despite what has been shared online, we believe that we have navigated these complexities as swiftly as possible and have remained in compliance with standard hospital practice, including federal and state regulations, throughout this matter. In fact, we proactively took steps above and beyond the family’s requests, the suggestions of their legal counsel, and the court’s order to make the desired accommodations. 

Because of our responsiveness throughout this time, the court has purged the previous Contempt Order.