State prisoner Joe Medley filed a medical negligence claim with the North
Carolina Industrial Commission alleging that a doctor hired by the
Department of Correction s(DOC), caused the amputation of his leg due to
infection. The Commission granted summary judgment in favor of the DOC
because the doctor was an independent contractor not subject to the North
Carolina Tort Claims Act. The court of appeals reversed the Commission's
decision because the DOC had a nondelegable duty to provide medical care to
Medley. The DOC appealed the appellate court's decision.
The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision,
holding that regardless of whether or not the doctor was an employee or an
independent contractor, "he was as a matter of law an agent of the State,
because he was performing a nondelagable duty for the State." See: Medley
v. North Carolina Department of Correction. 412 S.E.2d 654 (N.C. 1992.)
Over seven hundred Missouri state prisoners, who were formerly housed as
part of a bed-sharing program in Texas prison facilities from January 1,
1995, through December 31, 1997, filed a Federal class action civil rights
complaint regarding conditions of confinement and treatment during
transportation to Texas and while in Texas ...
Former New Hampshire state prisoner Shelia Elliott filed a Federal civil
rights complaint alleging that a strip search conducted by a private
transport company (Transcor) employee under contract with New Hampshire was
unreasonable and violated her right to privacy under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. Elliott was arrested in Tennessee on a New Hampshire
warrant, waiving extradition to New Hampshire, Elliott also complained of
her treatment upon arrival at the New Hampshire correctional facility.
Transcor defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted
in part and denied in part.
The Court held that one Transcor defendant was not entitled to summary
judgment, since she hadn't shown that she was entitled to qualified
immunity and there remained a factual issue "as to whether defendants
(Transcor) had reasonable suspicion justifying the search." The Court
further held that because Elliott did not differentiate among the various
defendants named in her complaint, all other counts were dismissed for lack
of personal jurisdiction. See: Elliott v. Strafford County, Civil No. 98
637 JD (D. New Hampshire January 25, 2001.)
In an unpublished opinion, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
district court order refusing to enjoin Missouri from attaching a § 1983
judgment for incarceration costs.
Missouri prisoner Edward Moore successfully sued Correctional Medical
Services (CMS) for deliberate indifference to his serious dental needs. A
jury awarded Moore $9,800 in compensatory damages. The jury's verdict was
affirmed on appeal, Moore v. Jackson, 16 Fed Appx. 517 (8th Cir. 2001), and
CMS "deposited monies with the district court to satisfy the judgment."
Missouri then filed a state court action under the Missouri Incarceration
Reimbursement Act (MIRA), seeking reimbursement of Moore's incarceration
costs. Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 217.827(1)(b) and 217.833. "Moore asked the district
court to enjoin the State from attaching the money CMS had deposited with
the court, arguing that the State was prohibited from doing so under"
Hankins v. Finnel, 964 F2d 853 (8th Cir. 1992). The court denied the motion
without explanation.
The Eighth Circuit reversed, explaining that the "district court's summary
denial" gave "no guidance as the whether the court considered Hankins to be
controlling." The court remanded for consideration as the whether the
reasoning of Hankins extends to a case where CMS, a state contractor
performing the ...
The plaintiff challenged his transfer to an out-of-state prison. At 974:
". . . [A] prisoner has no liberty interest in avoiding transfer to another
prison, be it out-of-state, more restrictive, or owned and run by a private
corporation."
The transfer does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment by reason of
its effect on family visiting. At 975: "In this age of reasonably
affordable (and speedy) interstate travel [let them eat cake!], the Court
has to assume that Berdine's exile in Tennessee, even if it lasts until his
mandatory release date in 2041, does not represent a 'total' denial of
visitation privileges." See: Berdine v. Sullivan, 161 F.Supp.2d 972
(E.D.Wis. 2001).
The plaintiff saw a specialist who said he needed a bone graft procedure
immediately, and the prison doctor defendant recommended that he get it.
Nine months later, the same specialist said there was no need for further
evaluation or surgery, and the prison doctor concurred. The prison doctor
could not be held liable absent evidence that he was involved in delaying
surgery. Exactly what was going on in this case is not made clear.
The plaintiff offered a report by Correctional Medical Services to support
a claim of liability against CMS, but there was nothing in it supporting a
claim for delay of surgery, so it is irrelevant. See: Palermo v.
Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 148 F.Supp.2d 1340 (S.D.Fla. 2001).
In 1999, Kyle Bell was tried and convicted of the 1993 murder of Jeanna
North by the state of North Dakota. Transcor America Inc., a private prison
transportation company, was contracted by the state of North Dakota to
transport Bell to a maximum security prison in Oregon. Bell escaped. The
North family alleges negligence and negligent infliction of emotional
distress for allowing the escape.
Transcor moved for judgment on the pleadings. Transcor argues that they
had no legal duty to the North family for the negligence claim and the
North family was not in the zone of danger nor was there a duty of care
owed for the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. The
custodian or supervisor of a prisoner has a general duty to the public;
however, there must be a special relationship between the parties
distinguishing them from the general public for Transcor to be held liable.
Transcor had no such relationship. The North family further argues that
they were a third party beneficiary to the contract between Transcor and
the State, yet the third party must have been intended to benefit from the
contract, which was not the case. The family did not plead breach of ...
The plaintiff, who had had repeated shoulder surgery, reinjured his shoulder in jail. He got an x-ray but no treatment except pain killers and referrals to mental health. After release, he had to have two additional surgeries on his shoulder.
A private medical care provider (EMSA in this case) is not a municipality, and punitive damages may be assessed against it. The policy reasons against punitive damage awards to municipalities don't apply, and the plaintiff needn't show that he was injured as a result of a corporate policy. (The latter conclusion is contrary to every prior decision I've seen on the point, none of which are cited.) The delays in care experienced by the plaintiff might show deliberate indifference on EMSA's part; the court appears to be applying respondeat superior but doesn't say so. See: Segler v. Clark County, 142 F.Supp.2d 1264 (D.Nev. 2001).
An investigative reporter published an article critical of the defendants; they responded; the plaintiff
sued them for defamation and interference in his business interests. Their statement that he
employed objectionable newsgathering techniques was not defamatory per se; nor was the
statement that reporters may have been used to unspecified plaintiffs' lawyers to generate bad
publicity; statements that the reporters' thesis was flawed, their statements inaccurate, their tone
sensationalistic was non-actionable opinion. See: Skolnick v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 132 F.Supp.2d 1116 (N.D.Ill. 2001).
A consent decree between Medicaid patients and the state is binding as a matter of due process upon HMO's who were agents of the state and contracted with it, where their contracts acknowledged that additional appeal process guidelines might be developed and the contractors would follow them, and that the contractors must follow the relevant grievance process. Under Rule 65(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., governing injunctions, the HMO's are bound because they are agents of the state by virtue of their contracts.
Non-class members lack standing to object to a failure to give notice of the settlement to class members.
The objecting non-class members were entitled to be heard at a fairness hearing (which the district court did not hold). However, the hearing to be held on remand need not "entail the entire panoply of protections afforded by a full-blown trial on the merits." See: Tennessee Ass'n of Health Maintenance Organizations, Inc. v. Grier, 262 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2001).
