The plaintiff sued over the decedent's death in jail. A nurse, a doctor,
and a private medical provider moved for a more definitive (sic) statement,
asserting that language in the complaint such as "inter alia" and "is not
limited to" is "impermissibly vague." The court says they they meet the
Federal Rules' notice pleading standards. The plaintiffs were not required
to plead "separate causes of action against each of" the defendants under
Rule 8(e)(2), which allows pleading in the alternative and pleading of
multiple claims regardless of consistency. (This holding stands in a murky
relation to defendants' murky argument.) Further, Rule 10(b), though it
requires that separate claims be stated in separate counts in the
complaint, does not require separate statements just because there are
multiple defendants. At 721: "Where the essence of the complaint against
multiple defendants is a scheme, plan or course of conduct, Fed.R.Civ.P.
10(b) does not require that each claim against each defendant be stated
separately merely because all of the defendants may not be involved in each
transaction or occurrence."

The defendants also moved to strike the language in the complaint alleging
deliberate indifference, intent, and willfulness, and therefore the claim
for punitive damages, on ...

Compensation to an expert for time spent in responding to discovery
includes a reasonable amount of time preparing for a deposition. Here, 3.5
hours was reasonable for a review of medical records more than a year after
the expert prepared his report (no details on the case itself). Time
conferring with counsel is not included. The rate for this work is cut
from $500 an hour (the expert's rate for being deposed) to $200. See: Boos
v. Prison Health Services, 212 F.R.D. 578 (D.Kan. 2002).

On July 5, 2001, the Court of Appeals of Georgia Upheld a trial court's
$600,000 award to Stephanie Stitt, a former state prisoner, who suffered
permanent nerve damage as a result of Correctional Medical Service's (CMS)
egregiously inadequate treatment of her condition. The appeals court also
held that the trial ...

The plaintiff complained about events at a jail that was constructed by a
municipality under state law authorization to provide the U.S. Marshals
Service with space for federal pre-trial detainees.

The plaintiff initially sued the Detention Facility, which is a building,
rather than the Cornell Corrections Corp. The court concludes that his
proposed amendment to name the corporation relates back to the filing of
the original complaint, since the corporation had sufficient constructive
notice that it would have been sued save for a mistake. The complaint was
served on the jail; service was accepted by an employee of the corporation.
The complaint indicated that the plaintiff meant to sue whoever was in
charge at the jail. The corporation had constructive notice because they
share the same attorney as the original defendants. They have failed to
show that they would be prejudiced by now defending against the plaintiff's
claims. Given the leniency accorded to pro se complaints, the plaintiff
should be relieved from his mistake. The court distinguishes cases where
the plaintiff simply didn't know the identity of the proper party, which
doesn't qualify as a mistake.

The plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 are dismissed because there
is no ...

The court disposes of summary judgment motions in 15 consolidated cases
concerning medical care provided by Correctional Medical Services at East
Jersey State Prison. The court grants summary judgment against nine of
them (mostly because the prisoners got a reasonable amount of attention, or
because they don't show any harm) and denies it at least in part in the
other six cases in a fact-heavy 48-page opinion.

The court notes that plaintiffs can recover against the corporate medical
provider only upon a showing of corporate policy or custom, then notes
evidence in the form of memos between CMS and DOC expressing concern about
CMS's failure promptly to provide vital medication, the difficulty of
getting appointments with primary physicians, the difficulty of getting
specialist referrals, and the failure adequately to maintain medical
records. The court notes that the surviving plaintiffs (surviving legally,
that is) all complain of these problems, and that a jury could find the
failure of CMS to take affirmative steps to deal with them created a
sufficiently obvious risk as to constitute deliberate indifference. (739)
Highlights of individual cases:

The failure to send an elevated PSA test on three occasions when the
plaintiff was sent to an oncologist, ...

The plaintiff physician complained that she was fired by a private
corporation providing medical care to prisoners because she gave a prisoner
a 7-Up to drink. Prison officials denied her further access to the prison
and the corporation cited that fact in firing her. She sued on the ground
that she had been defamed, could not find comparable employment, and should
have had the opportunity for a name-clearing hearing.

The plaintiff loses because she was not a state employee, since the prison
authorities did not control the performance of her duties. There is no
exploration of whether she acted under color of law by virtue of her
position and the contract with the prison system, because the plaintiff
asserted throughout the case that the issue was whether she was a state
employee. See: Hojnacki v. Klein-Acosta, 285 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002).

Failure to Provide Medical Records Waives Florida's Medical Malpractice
Pre-Suit Requirements


Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a Palm Beach
Circuit Court improperly dismissed a prisoner's medical malpractice suit
for failing to comply with pre-suit notice requirements.

While housed at Florida's Glades Correctional Institution (GCI), prisoner
John Bailey received medical treatment in 2002 that he claims was haphazard
and discontinued prematurely. In 2003, Bailey attached a signed consent to
an inmate request to medical, seeking his medical records to comply
with the pre-suit requirements of §766, Florida Statures. The response said
that under confidentiality we are unable to release this [sic]
confidential records to you, if you have your lawyer to request this we
will be happy to comply. Bailey proceeded pro se. A similar subsequent
request was denied.

Bailey also requested to be evaluated by an independent physician to meet
the pre-suit requirements. He was told treatment outside the Florida
Department of Corrections had to be approved by another office. Six
months after filing his notice of intent to sue, Bailey filed suit.

The defendants, which included Wexford Health Sources, moved to dismiss
for failure to comply with pre-suit requirements. The trial court granted
the motion ...

The plaintiff's release from prison moots his request for declaratory and
injunctive relief.

The plaintiff's claim for "emotional and psychological deterioration"
resulting from bad prison conditions is barred by the PLRA mental/emotional
injury provision. Some circuits have held that punitive damages can
nonetheless be recovered. At 622: "However, where the punitive damages
are for mental or emotional injuries, such is precluded by § 1997e(e)."
Nominal damages are not precluded.

The plaintiff's claim against Aramark Food Service and Correctional Medical
Services, Inc., are dismissed because he appears to rely on respondeat
superior, and corporate liability under § 1983 requires a showing of policy
or custom of the corporation.

The plaintiff failed to state what relief he sought from certain
defendants. Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., says a complaint should include "a
demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks." If the complaint
lacks such a demand, the federal court is "faced with the prospect of
rendering an advisory opinion," which they can't do. (623) (This is crap.
Rule 54(c) says that except for default judgments, "every final judgment
shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is
entitled, even if the party has not demanded such ...

$40,000 Assessed Against WA DOC For Failure To Release Contract Medical
Provider's Records

Columbia Legal Services (CLS) brought action against the Washington State
Department of Corrections (DOC) in 2003 for not providing public record
documents requested in accordance with Washington's Public Disclosure Act
(PDA), RCW 42.17. The Thurston County Superior ...

Public Right To Judicial Proceedings Outweighs Private Parties'
Confidentiality Agreements

East Coast Media Companies appealed a sealing order by New Jersey Superior
Court's Law Division for private parties' contractual agreements and court
documents relating to an alternative dispute resolution. The sealing order
was vacated with limitations.

Former employee Lawrence Lederman's agreement with Prudential Life
Insurance Company of America, Inc. and law firm Leeds, Morelli and Brown
were sealed because of their confidentiality agreement. The American
Broadcasting Companies, Inc., North Jersey Media Group, Inc.,;and Bloomberg
News L.P. (the media) claimed that the records should be available to the
public as they contain proof of racial discrimination, bribery and fraud.
The court allowed media intervention but ruled the records and proceedings
remain sealed as they were private and the confidentiality provisions were
clear on their face.

On appeal, the Second Division ruled that the records already were public
when the action was filed in court before the sealing orders, and that the
trial court took too narrow a view considering public interest. Further,
the parties' contractual agreements do not outweigh the presumption of
openness that applies to court proceedings and filed documents. The sealing
orders were vacated, subject to limitations, and remanded ...