An institutional case above all
Claims arising from this litigation centre on the university and hospital system that employed
Dr. Hadden, an obstetrician-gynecologist, rather than on him alone. The questions are what the
institutions knew, when, and what they did about it.
That focus is why these claims have been brought successfully long after the appointments
themselves. The evidence that matters is largely institutional: complaint records, internal
handling, credentialing and supervision.
Why survivors so often did not report
Obstetric and gynaecological care involves examinations that are intimate by necessity, often
during pregnancy, and frequently with a long-standing doctor. Patients had no way to calibrate
what was appropriate, and many describe realising only years later, sometimes when the case
became public, that what happened to them was not medicine.
That delay is characteristic and is not treated as a reason to doubt an account.
Dates matter more than people expect, and you do not need to supply them
Patients were seen across a long span and at more than one location, and which entity is
answerable can turn on when a particular appointment happened. Almost nobody remembers dates
going back that far. They do not need to. Appointment histories, billing entries and referral
correspondence reconstruct a timeline far more reliably than memory, and obtaining them is
ordinary early work in a claim rather than something a survivor has to solve first.
If you were referred to him by another doctor or by a clinic, that referral is worth
mentioning. It goes to how patients were channelled through the institution and to what the
institution was in a position to know.
Described as professional experience only. Every case is decided on its own facts, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
I was a patient but never made a complaint.
That is true of most survivors in this litigation. A complaint at the time is not required.
Does it matter which hospital I attended?
It can affect which institution is the defendant, so it is useful information, but not knowing precisely is not a barrier. Records can establish it.
I do not remember which years I was seen.
Very few people do, and it is not something you need to work out before getting in touch. Appointment and billing records establish the timeline, and requesting them is part of the ordinary early work in a claim.
Is there still time?
It depends on the facts and on the route used. Ask rather than assume; the answer is specific to you.