Lawsuit Alleging Hospital’s COVID Protocol Caused Teen's Death to Move Forward
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.
A Wisconsin judge partially lifted a gag order in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Scott Schara, father of Grace Naomi (Emily) Schara, who died Oct. 13, 2021, at age 19 days after she was admitted to the hospital with a COVID-19 diagnosis.
At two recent hearings — on July 22 and July 29 — Judge Mark J. McGinnis of the Circuit Court of Outagamie County, Wisconsin, partially overturned the May 21 gag order imposed against Schara, allowing him and his legal team to disclose audio recordings and written transcripts — but not videos — of depositions in the case.
McGinnis also allowed the plaintiffs to move forward with deposing an additional doctor, added to their lawsuit in June. As a result, the trial date, originally scheduled for Nov. 4, 2024, will be rescheduled to June 2, 2025, with the new date set to be formalized in the coming weeks.
In April 2023, Grace’s family sued Ascension St. Elizabeth Hospital in Appleton, Wisconsin, and several doctors and nurses, alleging the hospital’s protocols — including the administration of Precedex, lorazepam and morphine, and the implementation of a do not resuscitate (DNR) order against the family’s wishes — directly resulted in Grace’s death.
Schara told The Defender that the partial lifting of the gag order is “an example of the judge taking the middle of the road,” and was “a disappointment, but not a surprise.”
Responding to arguments from the defendants that the release of the transcripts of their depositions puts them at risk, Schara said, “I don’t understand how me sharing their video testimony puts them at risk.”
Schara said the continued prohibition on releasing these videos violates his First Amendment rights, but appealing this prohibition would further delay the lawsuit.
“We needed to get those depositions done. We were at a stalemate,” Schara said.
Schara said the case remains in the discovery phase, and attorneys for the newly added defendant have 45 days to respond, after which the scheduling order for the case will be formally adjusted to reflect the new trial date.
Defendants attack Schara’s efforts to draw attention to lawsuit on social media
In their lawsuit, the Scharas allege that Ascension St. Elizabeth Hospital’s COVID-19 treatment protocols directly resulted in Grace’s death. The lawsuit also alleges the defendants committed medical battery against his daughter — a legal standard doctors don’t typically face — resulting in Grace’s wrongful death.
The jury trial is the first nationwide to challenge these protocols.
In October 2023, the court rejected all motions hospital lawyers filed, seeking to dismiss the case. Since then, depositions and discovery have been in progress and a sixth defendant — Dr. George Gandev — was added by the plaintiffs.
According to Schara, Gandev’s “supervisory role in Grace’s death” was discovered during the May 2024 deposition of another hospital doctor, Dr. Gavin Shokar.
In a May 31 motion, the defendants attacked Schara’s efforts to draw attention to his lawsuit on social media.
“Plaintiff Scott Schara is not treating this matter as simply a lawsuit — he is instead treating it as an appendage of some greater internet crusade implemented through his social media apparatus,” the defendants’ motion states.
In a July 15 brief opposing the May 31 motion, attorneys for the Scharas addressed the claims:
“Defendants spend nine pages of their brief coloring the Scharas as conspiracy theorists — but utterly fail to connect these opinions to any actual conduct the protective order would prevent. …
“Defendants do not want the public to access the trial of this case because they know that a negative verdict will result in massive (deserved) negative publicity.
“The public interest in this case is large. Therefore, the Court should consider the public’s interest in the trial of this case when considering this motion.”
In their July 18 reply brief, the defendants repeated their previous claims about the Scharas:
“Mr. Schara wishes to utilize the instant lawsuit as an appendage of his larger internet-based crusade to ‘educate the public’ about his personal theories regarding the role of hospitals in government-sponsored ‘euthanasia programs’ and ‘medical murder.’”
And in a July 24 brief, the plaintiffs countered that the court’s gag order amounted to a First Amendment violation:
“The blanket protective order is a prior restraint on speech, which bears a heavy presumption against its constitutionality. A prior restraint is an order forbidding speech issued in advance. …
“Public interest weighs in favor [of] allowing dissemination. Courts have held the public interest is served by sharing information gained in discovery with the public or non-parties, even specifically medical depositions.”
‘My daughter is dead and I do not want this to happen to anyone else’
Schara has worked tirelessly to call attention to his daughter’s death and his lawsuit. He became an advocate for victims and families of victims of COVID-19 hospital protocols and other protocols which he says hasten death, launching a website and podcast, and producing a documentary detailing Grace’s and other victims’ stories.
In addition to employing a legal team led by Warner Mendenhall, Schara created two websites about his daughter’s case, Our Amazing Grace and GraceSchara.com, which include videos about her playful personality, her love of horseback riding and Elvis.
Schara told The Defender that through his lawsuit, he seeks not only to obtain justice for his daughter’s death but also to expose broader corruption in the medical and legal systems.
“I’m doing this because my daughter is dead and I do not want this to happen to anyone else, including the defendants’ kids,” he said.
Schara said he is doing this despite the challenges of pursuing a lawsuit, citing lawyers’ reluctance to accept such cases and the fact that in many states, including Wisconsin, monetary awards levied against doctors are paid by their insurers and not by the doctors themselves, as examples.
“Everybody wants to file a lawsuit, but people don’t realize what’s involved,” he said. “You really have to dedicate a good chunk of your life to it. Nobody’s taking them on and when they [lawyers] take them on, they decide to settle because of the cost.”
He added:
“We’re in this as an opportunity for the people we are suing to repent. We’re … really into this to shed light on the corruption going on in both the medical-industrial complex and the legal-industrial complex. We’re hoping Grace’s case exposes that and sheds light on this evil.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV's "Good Morning CHD."
This article was originally published by The Defender - Children's Health Defense's News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
