## Facts

- From approximately 1960 to 1972, physicians affiliated with a university medical program and a public hospital allegedly administered large doses of whole- or partial-body radiation to terminal cancer patients.
- The project was allegedly funded and supported by federal actors, including defense-related entities, and was allegedly intended to study the effects of massive radiation exposure in contemplation of nuclear warfare rather than to treat cancer.
- Plaintiffs (patients or their heirs/estates) alleged they were told the radiation was cancer therapy, while the experimental and military-related purpose was concealed.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were selected from a vulnerable population, asserted to be disproportionately African-American and “charity” patients who were indigent and poorly educated.
- Plaintiffs alleged a lack of meaningful informed consent: no signed consent forms for several years and later forms that allegedly failed to disclose material risks, the experimental purpose, and federal sponsorship.
- Plaintiffs alleged active concealment of the nature, purpose, and consequences of the experiments, which allegedly delayed or impeded efforts to seek legal redress.
- Plaintiffs asserted federal civil-rights claims (including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3)) and related constitutional theories, along with additional statutory and other claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the allegations stated a substantive due process violation based on nonconsensual, non-therapeutic medical experimentation implicating bodily integrity.
2. Whether alleged concealment and misrepresentation stated claims for denial of access to courts and procedural due process.
3. Whether allegations of discriminatory subject selection stated an equal protection claim and a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
4. Whether individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted constitutional rights were not clearly established between 1960 and 1972.
5. Whether certain additional federal theories (including claims framed under the Price–Anderson Act or broader implied constitutional remedies) were legally unavailable.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motions.
- The court held the complaint adequately stated claims that survived dismissal for:
  - Substantive due process (bodily integrity) violations.
  - Procedural due process violations.
  - Denial of access to courts.
  - Equal protection violations.
  - Conspiracy to deprive equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
- The court declined to dismiss the core constitutional claims on qualified-immunity grounds at the pleading stage, concluding the alleged rights were clearly established for purposes of the motions.
- The court dismissed certain other theories, including some statutory and implied-right approaches (including claims premised on the Price–Anderson Act and other non-core federal theories).

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss, the court assumes the truth of well-pleaded factual allegations and asks whether plaintiffs could prove any set of facts entitling them to relief.
- Substantive due process protects bodily integrity against nonconsensual, invasive medical treatment or experimentation; allegations of deception and non-therapeutic experimentation can state a claim.
- Allegations that defendants concealed material facts in a way that delayed or obstructed litigation can support constitutional claims for denial of access to courts and related procedural due process violations.
- Equal protection and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) claims may be sufficiently pleaded by alleging discriminatory targeting of a protected class and concerted action motivated by discriminatory intent.
- Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal where the complaint plausibly alleges violation of clearly established constitutional rights; the clarity inquiry focuses on whether a reasonable official would have understood the conduct to be unlawful at the time.
- Federal courts may refuse to extend or recognize additional implied constitutional or statutory theories where existing remedial frameworks and related constraints counsel against them.

## Conclusion

The court permitted plaintiffs to proceed past the pleading stage on core constitutional and § 1985(3) claims arising from alleged nonconsensual radiation experimentation and related concealment, while dismissing certain ancillary statutory and implied-right theories.


In re Cincinnati Radiation Litig., 874 F. Supp. 796 (S.D. Ohio 1995)