AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Medical Care: Mental Health
Monthly Law Journal Artice: Civil
Liability for Inadequate Prisoner Medical Care, 2007 (9) AELE Mo.
L.J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal
Article: Forced
Feeding or Medication of Prisoners, 2007 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Mental
Health Care of Prisoners, 2009 (11) AELE Mo.
L. J. 301.
A prisoner sought an injunction against being
placed in a double-bunked cell. He had repeatedly refused orders to enter
such a cell, and had been disciplined for these refusals. He claimed to
suffer from "mental health issues" which would make double-bunking
an "inhumane" condition of confinement and put him at substantial
risk of harm from anxiety over the possibility of fights and violence.
The trial court held that he had stated a possible Eighth Amendment claim,
but that he had to produce some evidence of his purported mental health
issues. The court rejected the plaintiff's due process and equal protection
claims since he had no protected right to a single-bunk cell and had not
been treated differently than other similarly situated inmates. Finally,
the prisoner had no First Amendment right to "keep to himself"
and refuse to be placed in a double-bunked cell. He was given 45 days to
produce evidence of a mental illness justifying his alleged need not to
be placed in a cell with another prisoner. Restucci v. Clarke, #09-10584,
2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 106880 (D. Mass.).
In a lawsuit filed
by the sister of a detainee who successfully committed suicide, a federal
appeals court upheld a finding of no liability on civil rights claims against
the county, but reversed summary judgment for a psychiatrist under contract
with the jail on a medical malpractice claim. The psychiatrist, who was
consulted by jail personnel on the detainee's prescriptions, tried to meet
with him for a psychiatric examination, but the detainee became "highly
agitated" and refused to speak with him in front of a jail officer.
The psychiatrist believed that this was a manic episode and discontinued
an antidepressant medication to attempt to deal with it. For purposes of
the medical malpractice claim, this was a treatment decision, resulting
in a duty of care. Whether the psychiatrist violated the applicable standard
of care and whether this proximately caused the detainee's death required
further proceedings to determine. While it was clear that the jail's express
policy required the presence of a jail officer during the interview with
the psychiatrist, this was not a violation of the detainee's constitutional
rights. Hunter v. Amin, #08-3719, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21731 (7th Cir.).
Prison officials did not act with deliberate
indifference to a prisoner's mental health needs in downgrading his mental
health status and having him placed in the general population, where he
harmed himself. There was no established protected liberty interest in
a prisoner's mental health classification. Rather than showing deliberate
indifference, the actions taken merely reflected a difference of opinion
about the care that the plaintiff needed. West v. Higgins, #08-11309, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 21057 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
An inmate failed to show that a prison psychiatrist
failed to provide him with needed treatment or disregarded a known risk
of harm he faced. He also failed to show that the psychiatrist conspired
with prison officials to unlawfully revoke his single-cell status or that
placing him in a double-cell subjected him to an atypical and significant
hardship. His claims that he suffered from depression, paranoia, and physical
discomfort were not serious enough to show an Eighth Amendment violation.
Hodges v. Wilson, #08-4868, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17828 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Injuries a prisoner allegedly suffered from
withdrawal from Xanax, which he claimed included hallucinations, nausea,
anxiety, and fluctuating blood pressure, did not satisfy the requirement,
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 19997e(e) that he show physical injury before being
able to recover damages for mental injuries. At the time, the plaintiff
prisoner himself only complained of cold symptoms and "agitation."
Additionally, because medical personnel provided other psychotropic medication
during his Xanax withdrawal, they were not deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs. Chatham v. Adcock, #07-14995, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 13731 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
A new Florida law, effective July 1, 2009,
requires law enforcement agencies to have a protocol with care facilities
concerning mental health examination of persons transported there. "Each
law enforcement agency shall develop a memorandum of understanding with
each receiving facility within the law enforcement's jurisdiction which
reflects a single set of protocols for the safe and secure transportation
of the person and transfer of custody of the person. These protocols must
also address crisis-intervention measures."
Jail employees were not entitled to qualified
immunity in a lawsuit contending that they were deliberately indifferent
to the serious medical needs of a prisoner with mental problems, resulting
in his death. The complaint alleged that the prisoner's mother brought
his anti-depression medicine to the jail, that he received it until it
ran out, and that his new prescription was not available until two days
later. When the prisoner's cellmate informed an employee of the sheriff's
department that the prisoner had been engaging in odd behavior and swallowing
shampoo, a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants knew that
he needed medical attention, but acted with deliberate indifference to
that need. Vaughn v. Gray, #07-2921, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4800 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that there was
a genuine issue concerning whether he was provided inadequate treatment
for mental health problems. He was provided with psychiatric medications
within 30 days of his arrival at a county jail. His lawsuit demonstrated
merely a disagreement with the course of treatment provided, rather than
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court also rejected
a claim concerning treatment provided for an erupted wisdom tooth, when
a dentist who examined the prisoner found no cause for concern. Jaquez
v. Newell, #07-CV-498, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15964 (N.D. Ok.).
A prisoner failed to show that the decision
to forcibly medicate him with anti-psychotic drugs constituted deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. The trial court had authorized
the expenditure of funds for the prisoner to hire an expert for the purpose
of making an assessment of the medical evidence, but the prisoner declined
to do so. His failure to present expert witness evidence could not be overcome
solely by the prisoner's presentation of his own sworn statement concerning
his treatment. Aruanno v. Glazman, #07-2543, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4154
(Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Inmate failed to establish a claim for inadequate
medical treatment, as he was examined by a number of mental health providers
while incarcerated, as well as being provided with treatment for a number
of physical ailments. His medical needs were not "serious," he
suffered no long-term effects from any delay in treatment, and he never
complained about his treatment while at the prison. Tsakonas v. Cicchi,
No. 07-4115, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 1856 (3rd Cir.).
Prison administrators would be authorized
to provide consent to medical treatment on a prisoner's behalf when he
was engaged in a hunger strike predicated on "delusional" reasons
that showed an "irrational" thought process. Conservatorship
of Burton, No. F0548632009, Cal. App. Lexis 96 (Cal. App. 5th Dist.).
An Ohio prisoner claimed that lithium prescribed
for his mental condition caused failure of his kidneys, and that he was
he being medicated in this manner over his objections. He also claimed
that he was improperly held down and forcibly administered anti-psychotic
drugs on at least one occasion. The court also found, in the alternative,
that the requirements of procedural due process had been met. There was
no violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment
since the facts alleged did not show that the care provided by prison doctors
was grossly inadequate or medically unsound. Kramer v. Wilkinson, No. 07-4104,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24538 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
In a class action over alleged inadequate
mental health care of inmates at a county jail, the plaintiffs failed to
define in "reasonably particular" detail, what adequate mental
health screening would be or a system for delivering medications, and that
injunctive relief concerning the treatment of the class was manageable
and "conceivable," in light of the individual characteristics
and circumstances of class members, including the severity and nature of
their mental illnesses. Class certification was therefore properly denied.
Shook v. Board of County Commissioners, County of El Paso, No. 06-1454,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18542 (10th Cir.).
While an inmate's claim concerning his allegedly
inadequate mental health treatment focused on his desire to be admitted
to a particular mental health facility, he was nevertheless required under
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e of the Prison Litigation Reform Act to exhaust all
available administrative procedures before filing suit, even if those procedures
could not provide him with the precise relief that he was seeking. He had
an opportunity to appeal a decision to transfer him out of the facility
after a determination that his conduct had become a "barrier"
to his participation in the program there, but failed to appeal. Additionally,
examining psychologists failed to find that he suffered from a mental illness.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants in
his lawsuit. Gruenberg v. Lundquist, No. 08-1251, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
18216 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A psychiatrist's deliberate indifference
caused a mentally ill prisoner's death from severe dehydration he experienced
after he was kept in a 90 to 100 degree observation room for several days.
A jury awarded $2 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in
punitive damages. The compensatory damage award was reduced to $1.5 million.
A federal appeals court rejected arguments that the remaining damage awards
were excessive, and found that there was sufficient evidence for the deliberate
indifference finding, as well as a medical malpractice claim. Further proceedings
were ordered on the trial court's reasons for allocating the compensatory
damage award between the federal deliberate indifference claim and a state
law medical malpractice claim, which was subject to a cap on non-economic
damages. Gibson v. Moskowitz, No. 07-1074, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9233 (6th
Cir.).
A federal civil detainee sufficiently presented
a claim that prison employees acted with deliberate indifference to his
mental health needs by denying him needed psychiatric treatment despite
his deteriorating condition, which went beyond mere negligence in care.
Because he was a civil detainee, and not a prisoner, he was not required
to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Additionally, as a civil detainee,
his claims were analyzed under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,
rather than under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishment. The detainee was confined under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4246(a), providing
for the hospitalization (and continued detention) of a person in the custody
of the Bureau of Prisons when their sentence is about to expire or when
criminal charges against them have been dismissed on the basis of their
mental condition, if they suffer from a mental disease or defect as a result
of which their release would create a "substantial risk of bodily
harm to another persons or serious damage to property of another."
Hicks v. James, No. 06-6786, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28251 (4th Cir.).
In a lawsuit over the death of an allegedly
mentally ill pretrial detainee while in custody in a county jail, the plaintiff
failed to show that the decedent had been discriminated against because
of his alleged disability of mental illness or that there had been deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. There was also no proof of an
official policy or custom of depriving mentally ill detainees of needed
medical treatment. The cause of the detainee's death was a previously undiagnosed
physical ailment of "peritonitis due to a perforated ulcer,"
and the prisoner's mental illness may have rendered meaningful communication
with the medical personnel who treated him "almost impossible."
In the absence of accurate information from the patient, the medical personnel
were denied information that might have aided in their ability to timely
diagnose the perforated ulcer. Winters v. Arkansas Dep't of Health &
Human Servs., No. 06-2787 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 15486. (8th Cir.).
A New York prisoner failed to show that
correctional officials violated his due process rights by putting him on
a restrictive diet that he claimed aggravated his existing mental health
condition, resulting in him suffering a mental breakdown. There was no
violation of due process, based on the fact that a medical clearance was
given before the diet was implemented. A federal appeals court, however,
reinstated the prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim, finding that the trial
court used too high a standard, requiring the prisoner to show that correctional
officials acted in a sadistic and malicious manner, rather than with deliberate
indifference to his health or safety. The prisoner adequately alleged that
correctional officials knew about the seriousness of his mental condition,
and intentionally used a false charge to impose the restricted diet which
caused his breakdown, requiring further proceedings. Guilbert v. Sennet,
No. 05-6594, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13401 (2nd Cir.).
While a prisoner suffering from a bipolar
disorder and severe depression showed that he had serious medical needs,
he failed to show that a mental health counselor acted with deliberate
indifference to these needs by denying him medication after learning from
a psychiatrist that he had been self-medicating himself. The counselor
made a good-faith effort to determine whether the inmate's symptoms justified
medication and allegedly determined that they did not. Goodrich v. Clinton
County Prison, No. 04-3741, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1148 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
New York state corrections law does not give
prison superintendents authority to authorize the commitment of inmates
who are sexual offenders to psychiatric hospitals in a unilateral manner.
Prisoners are entitled, prior to such commitment, to procedural safeguards,
including a right to be heard in court. New York ex rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio,
No. 140, 2006 N.Y. Lexis 3580. [N/R]
Despite prior suicide attempt by detainee,
jail caseworker/counselor was not liable for 18-year-old's subsequent successful
suicide when she returned him to a single person cell in the general population
of the jail. She was entitled to qualified immunity, as there was no clearly
established law indicating that her actions would violate his constitutional
rights, even if she arguably acted with poor judgment. Perez v. Oakland
County, No. 05-1583, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25754 (6th Cir.). [2006 JB Dec]
Detainee in county jail presented a viable
equal protection claim by alleging that the jail had a policy and practice
of discrimination and that an officer there discriminated against him in
his conditions of confinement because of his mental illness of bi-polar
disorder. Glisson v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Department, No. 05-3250,
408 F. Supp. 2d 609 (C.D. Ill. 2006). [N/R]
Bipolar prisoner who saw mental health staff,
counselors, and doctors 38 times in a 13 month period failed to show that
prison authorities acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs, or retaliated against him for filing a grievance by pursuing misconduct
charges against him or transferring him to another facility. Moots v. Lombardi,
No. 05-1594, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 17479 (8th Cir.). [2006 JB Sep]
Prisoner's claim that officials violated
his due process rights by requiring him to agree to take anti-psychotic
medications specified by a program coordinator of a sex offender treatment
program as a condition of parole was not frivolous, and should not have
been dismissed on that basis. The prisoner stated a possible claim for
infringement on his liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration
of anti-psychotic medications. Bundy v. Stommel, No. 05-1099, 168 Fed.
Appx. 870 (10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Under Kentucky state law, a county jail,
rather than the state, had the financial responsibility of providing indigent
prisoners with psychotropic medications. Osborne v. Commonwealth, No. 2004-SC-000566,
185 S.W.2d 645 (Ky. 2006). [N/R]
Nebraska prisoner did not have a clear right
under state law to access to his mental health records, nor a federally
protected constitutional right to such access, and therefore was not entitled
to a court order requiring correctional officials to provide him with a
copy of the records. State ex rel. Jacob v. Bohn, No. S-04-1410, 711 N.W.2d
884 (Neb. 2006). [N/R]
Schizophrenic prisoner who murdered Jeffrey
Dahmer and two other persons failed to show that prison officials at Supermax
facility knew that the heat in his cell, the constant illumination there,
and the denial of his request for audiotapes to "still the voices"
in his head were making his mental illness worse. Scarver v. Litscher,
No. 05-2999, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 1135 (7th Cir.). [2006 JB Mar]
Man detained by the State of Wisconsin as
a sexually violent person failed to show that he was provided with constitutionally
inadequate mental health treatment. He failed to show that decisions about
his treatment were either made by unqualified personnel or that his treatment
was "outside the bounds" of acceptable professional judgment.
Williams v. Nelson, No. 04-C-774C, 398 F. Supp. 2d 977 (W.D. Wis. 2005).
[N/R]
Connecticut prisoner's allegation that his
meetings with mental health staff at the prison were conducted on the cell
tier, within the hearing of other inmates, adequately stated a possible
claim for violation of his right to privacy concerning his mental health
issues under federal and state law. Hunnicutt v. Armstrong, No. 04-1565,
152 Fed. Appx. 34 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
In lawsuit claiming that county failed to
provide adequate medical care to mentally ill prisoners, a report by a
consulting expert retained by the county to evaluate health services and
programs at the county's jails was not protected from discovery under the
work products doctrine protecting materials prepared in anticipation of
litigation. The expert was not asked to investigate any particular claims
but rather to help the county develop long range planning and analysis
of its health care needs. There was no evidence that the county's outside
litigation attorney was involved in or directed the preparation of the
report. Mims v. Dallas County, No. 3-04-CV-2754, 230 F.R.D. 479 (N.D. Tex.
2005). [N/R]
Detainee suffering from paranoid schizophrenia,
acute psychosis, impulse-control disorder, and "polysubstance abuse"
could not assert disability discrimination claims since his impairments,
because they could be corrected "or mitigated" by medication,
did not constitute disabilities. Jail personnel did not use excessive force
in using pepper spray to subdue him when he actively resisted his transfer
to a hospital for treatment, and did not violate his right to receive adequate
medical attention. Atwell v. Hart County, Kentucky, No. 03-6421, 122 Fed.
Appx. 215 (6th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
Prison officials did not show deliberate indifference
to the serious needs of a mentally ill and suicidal prisoner by failing
to provide requested therapeutic art supplies, when they did provide a
medical examination and anti-psychotic medications. Scarver v. Litscher,
No.01C497, 371 S. Supp. 2d 986 (W.D. Wis. 2005). [N/R]
Mere three-day delay between the date a prisoner
was incarcerated in a county jail and the date she was seen by a psychiatrist
did not establish deliberate indifference by the County or its Commissioner
to her serious medical needs. Evidence in the record showed that she was
seen by mental health personnel whenever she requested, and that problems
with her medication were remedied as soon as those problems were brought
to the attention of medical personnel. Atkins v. County of Orange, No.
01CIV.11536, 372 F. Supp. 2d 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
A jail doctor's decision not to put a pre-trial
detainee on psychiatric medications after he attempted to swallow a razor
blade was not deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The doctor
made a medical determination that the detainee was not psychotic, and had
him placed in segregation and under close monitoring and supervision by
the jail's mental health personnel. Edmonds v. Horton, No. 03-6031, 113
Fed. Appx. 62 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal trial court applied the wrong legal
standard in denying certification of a class action lawsuit challenging
the alleged denial of access to mental health care at a county jail. Shook
v. El Paso County, No. 03-1397, 386 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB
Jan]
Statements by state prison psychologist to
mentally ill prisoner who made suicidal threats that no one would care
if he died did not constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs, when psychologist also recommended that the prisoner remain under
observation, and the prisoner had access to other psychologists at the
prison, as well as to a psychiatrist to whom he had been referred. Means
v. Cullen, 297 F. Supp. 1148 (W.D. Wis. 2003). [N/R]
Private psychiatric hospital and not-for-profit
company which owned it were not immune under Tennessee law for potential
liability for county jail inmate's suicide on the basis of their employee's
alleged action in telling county jail that suicide protocol precautions
were not necessary for this prisoner. Employee also qualified as a "state
employee" because of his service in screening prisoners to determine
if hospitalization was appropriate, and as a state employee, he was entitled
to statutory immunity, but this did not alter the result as to the hospital
or its owner. Shelburne v. Frontier Health, 126 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. 2003).
[N/R]
Psychiatrist was entitled to summary judgment
on prisoner's claim against him alleging unjustified forced administration
of anti-psychotic drugs and excessive doses of one such drug, causing memory
loss, headaches, twitching, and confusion. Prisoner failed to properly
present expert testimony or other medical evidence sufficient to establish
a claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, or that
the psychiatrist had subjective knowledge that there was an excessive risk
to the prisoner's health and that the psychiatrist then failed to act on
the basis of that knowledge. Roberson v. Goodman, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1075
(D.N.D. 2003). [N/R]
California Supreme Court rules that mentally
ill inmates, placed in mental institutions after the conclusion of their
sentences, may not be forced to take anti-psychotic drugs unless they are
found to be an immediate danger to themselves or others or incompetent
to refuse treatment. In re Qawi, No. S100099, 2004 Cal. LEXIS 1, 7 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 780, 81 P.3d 224. [2004 JB Feb]
Plaintiff failed to show that county had
a policy of deliberate indifference in training correctional officers in
the handling of mentally ill detainees, or that any such inadequacy in
county's training caused detainee's death. No liability for county for
the death of detainee from heart failure while incarcerated. Carey v. Helton,
No. 01-5623, 70 Fed. Appx. 291 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoners asserting claims against county
and sheriff for alleged systemic violations of their rights as persons
with "serious mental health needs" were not required to exhaust
available administrative remedies before filing suit when there was "no
available administrative remedies" that the plaintiffs could have
used for relief. Shook v. Bd. of County Commissioners of the County of
El Paso, 216 F.R.D. 644 (D. Colo. 2003). [N/R]
Mentally ill county jail inmates could not
pursue their claims for disability discrimination against the county and
county officials for alleged degrading treatment. They failed to show that
they were denied the benefits of any services, program or activity of the
jail, or that violent and self-destructive inmates who were mentally ill
were treated any differently than violent and self-destructive inmates
not suffering from a mental illness. Atkins v. County of Orange, 251 F.
Supp. 2d 1225 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
Montana Supreme Court finds that prison's
practice of subjecting certain inmates to behavior modification plans,
along with the living conditions in the areas where such inmates were housed,
violated the state constitutional right to "human dignity" of
mentally ill prisoner and represented cruel and unusual punishment, especially
when used as a substitute for medical treatment for disruptive and suicidal
prisoner. Walker v. State of Montana, #01-528, 68 P.3d 872 (Mont. 2003).
[2003 JB Aug]
Federal appeals court establishes legal standard
for medicating criminal defendants involuntarily to enable them to be competent
for trial. United States v. Gomes, No. 01-1143, 289 F.3d 71 (2nd Cir. 2002).
[2002 JB Oct]
Widow of manic depressive detainee who suffered
a heart attack and died while in custody could pursue claim that county
policy of delaying medical screening of combative inmates constituted a
substantial risk of serious harm to the decedent. Gibson v. County of Washoe,
Nevada, #99-17338, 290 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Oct]
Prisoner's mental health disorder, diagnosed
as bipolar disorder, was sufficiently serious so that deliberate indifference
to his resulting medical needs, including anxiety he allegedly suffered
due to a lack of medication review, would violate the Eighth Amendment.
Further proceedings ordered as to whether manager of counseling treatment
services purposefully misdiagnosed prisoner's mental illness or denied
medication review. Page v. Norvell, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (D. Ore. 2000).
[N/R]
Federal trial court prohibits housing of
seriously mentally ill inmates at "super-maximum" security state
prison, based on claim that conditions there, as applied to the mentally
ill, amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Jones 'El v. Berge, #00-C-421-C,
164 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (W.D. Wis. 2001). [2002 JB Apr]
290:22 Mentally ill prisoners in New York
City jails are entitled, under state law, to help in obtaining continuing
treatment on their discharge; trial court issues preliminary injunction
requiring discharge planning for such prisoners. Brad v. City of New York,
712 N.Y.S.2d (Sup. 2000).
278:24 New Jersey reaches wide-ranging $16
million settlement in lawsuit over allegedly inadequate treatment of mentally-ill
prisoners and disability discrimination against them; plaintiffs' attorneys
to receive $1.22 million in attorneys' fees; disciplinary policies to take
prisoners' mental illness into account; all new prisoners to receive mental
health assessment within 72 hours. D.M. v. Terhune, 67 F. Supp. 2d 401
(D.N.J. 1999).
[N/R] Pretrial detainee who was incompetent
to stand trial could immediately appeal administrative order permitting
medical personnel to forcibly administer anti- psychotic medication, but
was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing before the district court when
administrative proceeding complied with due process. U.S. v. Morgan, No.
99-6245, 193 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 1999).