A local woman is suing a nurse practitioner and a Rio Rancho clinic that she says removed her intrauterine birth-control device without permission.

The plaintiff, represented by the Law Office of Robert Cooper in Albuquerque, filed a civil suit against Presbyterian Medical Services Rio Rancho Family Health Center and a nurse practitioner on Jan. 13 in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.

The suit claims civil battery, negligence and violation of her constitutional rights under the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to choose her form of contraception. Don Daniel, vice president of Legal Affairs for Presbyterian Medical Services, said the nurse practitioner no longer works at Presbyterian Medical Services, having left in 2007. He said her leaving had nothing to do with the alleged incident.

Because it’s a pending lawsuit, Daniel could not discuss the case. He did say, however, that the company expects the highest level of professionalism from nurse practitioners.

The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages. Her attorney said the amount of money will be determined by the jury. He explained that the suit was filed in federal court because the clinic has special protection under a federal law that says the suit must be filed in federal court. A trial date has not been scheduled.

In the suit, the plaintiff said that on or about Jan. 17 of 2007, she went to Rio Rancho Family Health Center to have the strings on her IUD shortened. She says that by one of the strings being too long it was causing her discomfort. An IUD is a contraceptive device that is placed in the cervix and has a string that is used to remove the device if necessary. This IUD was first inserted in June of 2006 by a different healthcare provider.

The plaintiff says the nurse practitioner questioned her on her choice of contraception and when she began the procedure, the plaintiff felt a distinct pulling on the strings followed by a sharp pain in her uterus similar to a very strong menstrual cramp.

As that happened, the plaintiff said the nurse practitioner told her that she had accidentally pulled out the IUD and claimed that “it was a good thing.”

The nurse practitioner then asked the plaintiff, according to the suit, if she wanted to hear her take on the situation. In the suit, the plaintiff says the nurse practitioner told her, “I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don’t know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them. What the IUD does is take the fertilized egg and pushes it out of the uterus. Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it’s not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.”

Later, the nurse practitioner told the plaintiff it was better that she did not have the IUD because she could now use a “non-abortion” form of contraception, according to the suit.

The nurse practitioner suggested the deprovera shot or the pill, and made clear that she would not insert a new IUD, according to the suit. Because the plaintiff was concerned about pregnancy, she opted to have the deprovera shot.

The plaintiff claims the nurse practitioner told her that the shot would not be effective for two weeks so she would have to use another form of contraception. The plaintiff and her husband feared becoming pregnant during that two-week period, so they abstained from having any intercourse. The plaintiff said that on Feb. 19, 2007, she had a different healthcare provider put in an IUD.

The alleged incident occurred in 2007 and the suit was filed this month. The plaintiff’s attorney explained the reason for the delay is because the federal tort claims law applies. That means the attorney must file an administrative claim first with the department of health and give the defendant six months to reply. He said the clinic never answered the claim, so he was eligible to file the lawsuit. The rest of the delay was explained as “working through the legal process.”