Medical care.

U.S. Appeals Court

Alvarado v. Litscher 267 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2001). A prisoner brought an action against a prison alleging deliberate indifference to his exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court denied the prison's motion to dismiss and the appeals court affirmed, finding that the prisoner stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court found that the prisoner's current and future health had been endangered because he had chronic asthma. The prisoner alleged that other prisoners in his non-smoking housing unit smoked in violation of prison policy because correctional officers were frequently not at their post to enforce the smoking ban. The prisoner also alleged that he is unable to participate in programs that would enhance his chances of parole because smoking is permitted in common areas of the prison. (Dodge Correctional Institution, Wisconsin)

SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENT

U.S. District Court

Breakiron v. Neal 166 F.Supp.2d 1110 (N.D.Tex. 2001). A county prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when a jail door closed on him, and for alleged intentional or deliberate deprivation of medical care. The district dismissed the damage and deliberate deprivation claims. The court also held that the county's act of deducting payments from the prisoner's inmate trust account did not violate the prisoner's rights because it was rationally related to the county's legitimate interest in the efficient use of prison resources and the prisoner was not denied medical treatment as the result of any inability to pay for medical treatment. (Hunt County Jail, Texas)

COSTS

U.S. Appeals Court

Chisolm v. McManimon 275 F.3d 315 (3rd Cir. 2001). A hearing-impaired detainee brought a suit against the warden of a pretrial detainment facility and county court system, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act, [section] 1983 and a state discrimination law, for failing to provide an interpreter and other services. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the detainee appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the county court system was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity during an ongoing merger with the state court system. The appeals court held that summary judgment was precluded by genuine issues of material fact as to: (1) the effectiveness of alternate aids or services provided to the detainee when the jail failed to provide a sign language interpreter during the intake process, activate closed captioning capabilities on a prison television, (2) provide a text device for transcribing telephone calls; an d whether pencil and paper were effective auxiliary aids in place of a sign language interpreter; and (3) whether exceptions to institutional rules on telephone calls were an effective alternative to providing special telephones. The court held that extradition was a "program" within the meaning of ADA and the Rehabilitation Act such that the court was required to ensure the ability of the detainee to participate in the hearing. 'When the detainee arrived at the detention facility on a Saturday, he was locked down in his cell to keep him apart from the general population until Monday when facility classification staff arrived. This practice was applied to all detainees admitted when classification staff members were not working at the facility. Such unclassified detainees consumed meals in their cells and did not have television or telephone privileges. When the detainee was not provided with an interpreter at intake he became upset and was eventually interviewed by a nurse, who concluded that he was a suicid e risk. He was kept in solitary lockup from Saturday until Tuesday. On Monday he was taken to meet with a classification staff member, where he was interviewed and was given a medium security classification. But the staff member had described the detainee as a "vagrant" in spite of the fact that he had worked for the U. S. Postal Service for 13 years and had lived at the same address for three years. This error added two points to his classification score, moving him from "minimum" security to "medium." (Mercer County Detention Center, New Jersey)

HEARING IMPAIRED ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act

U.S. Appeals Court

SUICIDE DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Comstock v. McCrary,. 273 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2001). The personal representative prisoner's estate brought a civil rights action against prison medical personnel after the prisoner committed suicide while confined. The district court denied summary judgment for the defendants based on qualified immunity and the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appeals court held that evidence was sufficient to establish that a prison psychologist subjectively perceived, and was deliberately indifferent to, the risk that the prisoner might commit suicide. The psychologist had released the prisoner from a suicide watch without making any reasoned assessment or evaluation of the prisoner's suicide risk at the time of release, despite concluding that the prisoner was sufficiently at risk to put him on suicide wateh only one day before. The psychologist also admitted that he suspected that other inmates had targeted the prisoner as a snitch, a characterization that he knew was very perilous for the prisoner. (Reception and Guidance Center at the State Prison of Southern Michigan)

U.S. District Court

FEMALE PRISONERS

Goode v. Correctional Medical Services 168 F.Supp.2d 289 (D.Del. 2001). An inmate sued various prison officials, a third party medical contractor, and the contractor's nursing employees alleging excessive force, sexual assault and Eighth Amendment violations in connection with an obstetric examination. The district court held that the inmate had sufficiently exhausted administrative remedies, the third-party medical contractor had no civil rights liability on the basis of respondeat superior, and the inmate stated an Eighth Amendment claim against the employees. The employees allegedly hugged and kissed the inmate during the examination, and conducted an unauthorized internal examination. The incident allegedly caused the inmate light bleeding, caused her blood pressure to rise, and caused her to go into labor four weeks early. (Baylor Women's Correctional Facility, Delaware)

U.S. District Court

HANDICAP ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act

Kruger v. Jenne, 164 F.Supp.2d 1330 (S.D.Fla. 2000). A blind county jail inmate brought a [section] 1983 and Americans with Disability Act (ADA) suit against a sheriff and a private medical care company that contracted to provide medical care to inmates, alleging deprivation of necessary accommodations and failure to treat his medical needs. The district court held that the inmate stated a [section] 1983 Eighth Amendment claim against the company and an ADA claim against the sheriff in his official capacity, and allowed the inmate to maintain simultaneous ADA and [section] 1983 claims against the sheriff. The private medical company allegedly failed to accommodate the inmate's blindness with a cane or otherwise, despite advance notice of the need for one, and allegedly deliberately delayed or withheld needed treatment for injuries sustained in several falls, based on cost-savings policies, leading to unnecessary suffering. The sheriff allegedly failed to have the inmate's cell fitted with hand rails or provid e him with a cane, leading directly to the inmate's injuries when he suffered several falls. The inmate alleged that the sheriff carried out a policy of denying or delaying needed medical care for cost-savings reasons. (North Broward Detention Center, Florida, and EMSA Correctional Care)

U.S. District Court ADA- Americana with Disabilities Act

WHEELCHAIR TRANSFER DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Navedo v. Maloney, 172 F.Supp.2d 276 (D.Mass. 2001). A state inmate brought [section] 1983 and Americana with Disabilities (ADA) actions against a state, a private medical care provider, and medical employees, alleging that their refusal to allow him access to a wheelchair and to disabled-accessible facilities violated his civil rights and caused severe and irreparable damage to his leg. The district court denied summary judgment for the defendants, in part, finding that fact issues remained as to the extent of the inmate's injuries, and denied qualified immunity to the state corrections commissioner. The commissioner had rejected the medical stall's recommendation that the inmate be transferred to another facility with appropriate accommodations and allegedly failed to maintain prisons in compliance with federal standards of accessibility. (Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk and Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Shirley)

U.S. Appeals Court

PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS

Singleton v. Norris. 267 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2001). A state prisoner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking a stay of execution of his death sentence. The district court denied the petition and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed, finding that the inmate lacked the understanding necessary to permit the state to execute him, and a permanent stay of execution was warranted. Prison officials had administered psychotropic medication to protect the prisoner from harming himself and others, which periodically rendered the prisoner competent. (Arkansas Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Spencer v. Sheahan, 158 F.Supp.2d 837 (N.D.Ill. 2001). A former pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The district court denied summary judgment for the defendants. The detainee was a known diabetic who suffered from a cut between two toes on his right foot and subsequently developed an infection that resulted in two amputations and stump revision surgery. The court noted that there was a seven-day delay between the time that a physician observed "positive skin changes" on the detainee's foot and the time of diagnosis and treatment. (Cook County Jail, Illinois)

U.S. District Court

MEDICATION DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Williams v. Elyea, 163 F.Supp.2d 992 (N.D.Ill. 2001). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 suit against infirmary physicians and a nurse, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the inmate's pain and discomfort in his mouth from an earlier laceration did not rise to the level of an objectively serious medical need. The court found that the infirmary physicians' refusal to dispense over-the-counter medication, and a nurse's refusal to refer the inmate to a physician, did not evidence the culpable state of mind required for a deliberate indifference claim. (Stateville Correctional Center, Joliet, Illinois)

U.S. District Court

DENTAL CARE

Williamson v Brewington-Carr, 173 F.Supp.2d 235 (D.Del. 2001). An inmate brought an action against corrections officials alleging denial of proper dental care. The district court held that the inmate's abscessed tooth, recurring gum infections, and loss of two teeth constituted a serious health need that was entitled to Eighth Amendment protection. (Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility, Delaware)

U.S. District Court

SPECIAL DIETS DENTAL CARE DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Word v. Croce, 169 F.Supp.2d 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials alleging violations of her civil rights. The district court dismissed the case. The court held that the denial of her request for a special vegan-vegetarian diet did not constitute deliberate indifference to her medical needs. The court noted that the prisoner's diet request was not for religious or medically indicated reasons and that the prison already provided the prisoner with the high fiber diet that was ordered by physicians. The court also found no constitutional violations in the officials' refusal to refer her to a gastroenterologist, replace her fillings, or apply orthodontic braces. The court noted that the prisoner refused to allow prison dentists, who were willing and able to fill the prisoner's cavities, to take necessary diagnostic x-rays, and that braces were not indicated for a woman who was nearly 50 years old. (Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court

DELAY IN CARE FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE

Young v. Martin 172 F.Supp.2d 919 (E.D.Mich. 2001). The personal representative of an inmate who died in custody brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials alleging cruel and unusual punishment due to denial of adequate medical care. The district court found genuine issues of facts as to whether the director of the corrections department adopted a policy that discouraged providing necessary health care to prisoners, depriving the director of qualified immunity. The deceased prisoner suffered from diabetes and other physical ailments and made his medical needs known to corrections personnel. The representative alleged that the prisoner was routinely deprived of proper administration and dosage of his insulin, and other health care. (Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, Michigan)