In Colorado, the Catholic Church apparently doesn't know what its lawyers are up to. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

In 2006, Jeremy Stodghill filed a medical malpractice/wrongful death case after his wife, seven months pregnant at the time, died at St. Thomas More Hospital, a Catholic hospital in Canon City, Colorado. In addition, the twin fetuses she was carrying died as well.

Mr. Stodghill brought his wife to the Emergency Room that day after she experienced vomiting and shortness of breath. He dropped his wife in the ER and went to park the car. By the time he returned to the ER, his wife had lost consciousness. Approximately an hour later, Ms. Stodghill suffered a heart attack and died. The twins had been left inside her womb and they died as well. Stodghill sued, alleging that the twins could have been saved if medical personnel had taken appropriate emergency action. Despite being paged, the on-call obstetrician never responded. An ER nurse listened for fetal heart sounds, but none were heard. The ER doctor then decided against taking any action to save the babies.

The hospital’s lawyers, in defending the case, argued in part, that under Colorado law, a fetus is NOT a person, therefore, the twins could not recover anything in a lawsuit. Two lower courts have sided with the hospital and Stodghill’s case is now before the Colorado Supreme Court.

The hospital’s argument that a fetus is NOT a person directly contradicts the Church’s position that life begins at conception. After news of the story broke a couple of day ago, three Colorado bishops said they will conduct a “…full review of this litigation and of the policies and practices…to ensure fidelity to and faithful witness to the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Okay, so the church has recognized that taking a legal position directly contrary to its position that life begins at conception might raise some eyebrows. So the Church will “review” the litigation. Is the Church really suggesting that it didn’t know its lawyers had taken this position? Hard to imagine. Cosider that the Colorado statute of limitations for medical malpractice is 2 years – so presumably this case has been on file since 2008 or earlier. And the case is currently residing with the state Supreme Court. So this “fetus is not a human defense” was likely originally raised in a motion, and then briefed by the parties. The motion was then probably argued before the trial judge. The trial judge granted the motion. That order eliminated a substantial portion of the case. Typically, lawyers tell their clients when good things happen. In the old days, lawyers did that via snail mail. Nowadays, good results can be transmitted in seconds via email. The Church’s lawyers seem very capable. Maybe the Church internet connection was down.

Then the plaintiff appealed to the Colorado Appellate Court. Appellate Briefs were probably drafted. Those briefs have to spell out the legal arguments in detail, citing the statute and relevant case law. Appellate lawyers often send copies of the briefs to their clients for review or simply to let them know the work is being done. The Appellate Court then apparently upheld the trial court’s ruling, most likely in a written opinion. Once again, that would have been good news for the Church. Most appellate lawyers, proud of a good result, immediately share that with the client, oftentimes providing a copy of the the opinion. The Church hasn’t commented if it was aware of the Appellate Court ruling.

The plaintiff then appealed the Appellate Court’s ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court. A couple of news stories pop up in local papers and on the internet that Church lawyers are arguing a fetus doesn’t have legal status. Someone wakes the Most Reverend Bishops and they are most disturbed. They are going to look into this.

Maybe the Church was utterly clueless that its lawyers had taken a position directly contrary to Catholic teachings. And maybe the Church was aware that if successful, that position, would afford the Church an opportunity to eliminate the potential of a multi-million dollar settlement or verdict. So the Church simply decided to keep quiet and hope nobody makes a stink. Sound familiar?

By Mark Loftus February 17, 2026
German Conglomerate makes a bid to end Roundup litigation 
By Mark Loftus February 17, 2026
By Mark Loftus February 3, 2026
THE ILLINOIS GENDER VIOLENCE ACT - IN A NUTSHELL Under the Illinois Gender Violence Act (GVA) 740 IlCS 82/1, victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and other forms of gender related violence can bring civil actions against perpetrators even when criminal charges are not filed. The GVA defines two of the four acts of “gender violence” - though the definitions are a bit convoluted: One or or more acts of violence of physical aggression satisfying the elements of battery under the laws of Illinois that are committed, at least in part, on the basis of a person’s sex; A physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions satisfying the elements of battery under the laws of Illinois, whether or nor the act or acts resulted in criminal charges, prosecution or conviction. Under the Illinois Criminal Code, a person commits a battery when he or she knowingly, without legal justification, causes bodily harm or makes insulting/provoking physical contact with another individual. 720 ILCS 5/12-3. The Criminal Code requires physical contact. AND EMPLOYERS MAY NOW FACE LIABILITY In July, 2023 an amendment made it explicit that the GVA does extend to the workplace. As set forth in the Act, an employer is liable for gender-related violence in the workplace by an employee when the interaction arises out of and in the course of employment. Liability will only arise however, if the (1) the employee was directly performing his or her duties and the violence was the proximate cause of the injury or (2) while the agent of the employer was directly involved in the gender-related violence and the performance of the work was the proximate cause of the injury. Liability will only extend to the the employer however if it can be shown that (1) the employer failed to supervise, train or monitor the offending employee or 2) the employer failed to investigate and respond to reports directly provided to appropriate management personnel. Damages under the Act may include injunctive relief, and actual damages, damages for emotional distress and punitive damages. And importantly, the GVA is a fee-shifting statute - so a successful plaintiff may seek to recover attorneys fees. So, in cases of sexual harassment, may a plaintiff, include a count for damages under the GVA? The answer is an unqualified yes. And the contact need not be excessive or dramatic or prolonged - so long as there was no consent nor any justification for the physical contact. In fact, the Act notes that a legitimate threat that the harasser will commit an nonconsensual act is sufficient.
Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.