On what grounds? She failed a drug test and the hospital are mandatory reporters, I'd see the case instantly thrown out, and we only got her own side of the story.
I've no idea where you read that from. Her only accounts are that the nurses changing shifts warn their followers she's tested positive, that they repeatedly warned her about the breastfeeding risks and that the social worker doesn't believe she's a user, that's about it.
> I'm sure a good lawyer will know how to spin it.
And I'm sure even a bad lawyer would know how to dismantle that.
The nurses at shift change noted that she had failed two urinalyses. That is a statement of fact, not a derogatory assassination of character.
OK, it's UnitedHealthcare® if you want silly capitalization.