Michelle Kosilek Will Not Get Taxpayer Funded SRS After Appeals Court Ruling

[Wynternight]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/16/federal-court-nixes-taxpayer-funded-sex-change-for-wife-killer/?intcmp=latestnews

Michelle Kosilek will not get taxpayer funded SRS after a federal appeals court overturned the 2012 decision.

[suzifrommd]

I wish I knew more about the decision. Was this legal recognition that SRS is not medically necessary (a disaster for our community) or was it some other factor?

[peky]

No convicted felon should get a free SRS unless it is also free to all law-abiding transsexual citizens of this country

[mrs izzy]

This could hurt the community in a big way. I see they said it did not fall under the 8 th.

Am with Suzi want to see what the reason behind it is.

Not to take away from the fact that they are a murderer but human care is the foundation of section 8.

[Wynternight]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/12/16/federal-appeals-court-overturns-ruling-ordering-sex-change-surgery-for-mass-prison-inmate/WqBuLuGI14yZ6nVoFCIfjK/story.html

"But the appeals court ruled Tuesday that Wolf had wrongly substituted his own judgment for the medical professionals, who did not unanimously endorse the surgery as the only appropriate solution for the condition that all sides acknowledged contributed to a depressed mental state and suicide attempts by Kosilek."

[ThePhoenix]

You can read the opinion on the website of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  It is 117 pages long.

I read it all and was quite amazed.  Its a very bad decision.

[mrs izzy]

You can find it here if anyone wants to wade threw the pages

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/12-2194P2-01A.pdf

[suzifrommd]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/12/16/federal-appeals-court-overturns-ruling-ordering-sex-change-surgery-for-mass-prison-inmate/WqBuLuGI14yZ6nVoFCIfjK/story.html

"But the appeals court ruled Tuesday that Wolf had wrongly substituted his own judgment for the medical professionals, who did not unanimously endorse the surgery as the only appropriate solution for the condition that all sides acknowledged contributed to a depressed mental state and suicide attempts by Kosilek."

Thanks. Seems like a disaster, not just for us, but for anyone with expensive medical conditions that the prison system (or our own insurance policies) can just decide to side with the minority (I'm assuming what that means by "did not unanimously endorse" - that a minority thought it was ok to deny a transgender patient SRS) and deny any expensive treatment.

No convicted felon should get a free SRS unless it is also free to all law-abiding transsexual citizens of this country

Unfortunately, that's where the battle's being fought, right? No non-inmate is suing for the medical necessity of SRS. But this decision has the potential for ramifications on our own health insurance policies for decades to come.

[mac1]

No convicted felon should get a free SRS unless it is also free to all law-abiding transsexual citizens of this country

It should not be available to anybody at tax payer's expense unless it is under a medical insurance program for which the reciepient has paid premiums.

[ThePhoenix]

Thanks. Seems like a disaster, not just for us, but for anyone with expensive medical conditions that the prison system (or our own insurance policies) can just decide to side with the minority (I'm assuming what that means by "did not unanimously endorse" - that a minority thought it was ok to deny a transgender patient SRS) and deny any expensive treatment.

In this case, it seems even worse than that.  When the Department of Corrections in Massachusetts received a medical recommendation from its own physician stating that SRS was medically necessary and needed to happen, they did not like the recommendation.  So they decided to have that recommendation "peer reviewed" by another person, in this case a social worker named Cynthia Osborne.  Cynthia Osborne is with Johns Hopkins has a known position in opposition to providing SRS to trans* people.  She has specifically been involved in fighting transition related medical care being provided to inmates in at least two other states and the minutes from the Department of Corrections meetings specifically indicate that they decided to have her review the previous work because they knew she disagreed with providing SRS. 

So not only was the Department of Corrections free to take the minority view, they were also free to reject their own physician's advice and go looking for someone they knew would support their view.  Upon finding such a person, having them review the file without ever seeing the patient, and (big surprise) receiving the recommendation they wanted, they were free to then adopt it against the advice of the actual treating physicians.

That's one of the amazing things about this decision.

[ImagineKate]

The U.S. tax court has already ruled that SRS is medically necessary. This is why you can deduct it on your tax return. So there can and will be a split of sorts sooner or later and it will head to SCOTUS.

[Shana-chan]

The U.S. tax court has already ruled that SRS is medically necessary. This is why you can deduct it on your tax return. So there can and will be a split of sorts sooner or later and it will head to SCOTUS.

I got a late start in life so at the moment, I don't know anything about tax returns and filing but, are you saying I can say I wish to have SRS on my tax return and I'll get more money? What are you saying?

[ImagineKate]

I got a late start in life so at the moment, I don't know anything about tax returns and filing but, are you saying I can say I wish to have SRS on my tax return and I'll get more money? What are you saying?

What I'm saying is that you can put the cost of your SRS on your tax return and it will reduce your taxable income (subject to IRS criteria and limits) meaning you will pay less in taxes.

[mac1]

What I'm saying is that you can put the cost of your SRS on your tax return and it will reduce your taxable income (subject to IRS criteria and limits) meaning you will pay less in taxes.

That is only if your total medical and other itemized deductions exceed the calculated minimums based on your adjusted gross income.

[ImagineKate]

That is only if your total medical and other itemized deductions exceed the calculated minimums based on your adjusted gross income.

Of course. That's why I said subject to IRS criteria and limits. I went through this for a few tax years, despite incurring tens of thousands for my wife's treatments and surgery not covered by insurance we couldn't deduct anything. There is a way around it, which is the FSA or HSA if your employer offers it. But you need to put the money in as you go and I believe you lose any unused at the end of the year.