Bowman v. Corrections Corp. of America.

U.S. District Court

PRIVATE PROVIDER

DELIBERTE INDIFFERENCE

Bowman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 188 F.Supp.2d 870 (M.D. Tenn. 2000). The mother of a deceased inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against a corporation that managed a correctional facility, the warden, a hospital and physicians, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care for sickle cell anemia. After a jury trial judgment was entered in favor of the defendants the plaintiff moved for judgment as a matter of law. The district court held that the corporation's medical policy violated contemporary standards of decency. According to the court, it was proper to consider the constitutionality of the medical policy of the corporation that managed the correctional facility, even though the mother's claims for damages against the physicians were unsuccessful, because the corporation's liability for its medical policy was measured by a different legal standard. The court concluded that the corporation would be treated as a municipal corporation for [section] 1983 liability purposes and noted that the corporation could not "contract away" its obligation to provide adequate medical care to inmates in its custody. The court held that the corporation that managed the facility violated contemporary standards of decency by contracting with a physician who provided exclusive medical services with substantial financial incentives to reduce necessary medical services. The court noted that the contract exceeded proper levels of risk to the physician under the American Medical Association and federal regulatory standards, and that the state had set higher cost requirements for services than were expended under the contract. The contract with the physician had a capitation agreement that governed referral of inmates to medical specialists, decisions to do laboratory tests, and the issue of prescriptions. According to the court, the contract and "its extreme financial incentives" to the physician "poses a significant risk for the denial of necessary medical treatment for the inmates." The court found that these covered services involved the existence of perceived or actual serious medical conditions that required treatment or analysis. The court entered an injunction, prohibiting the corporation from enforcing its contract with the physician. The court also awarded attorney fees to the plaintiff for the time expended on the motion. (Corrections Corporation of America's South Central Correctional Facility, Tennessee.)