×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Wyoming Federal Court Defers Termination Of Consent Decree, Allows Discovery
by Michael Rigby
In this case involving a motion by Carbon County officials to terminate a
1987 consent decree regarding prisoner medical care, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Wyoming twice granted plaintiffs' discovery
motions: once to gather evidence demonstrating ongoing constitutional
violations, and again to access prisoners' medical records.
In August 2003 the defendants--various Carbon County officials, including
the Sheriff--sought immediate termination of a 1987 consent decree
governing medical care at the county jail. The plaintiffs, a class of
current and former county prisoners, opposed the motion and moved for
additional discovery.
After examining the issues, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and
denied the defendants' motion pending completion of the plaintiffs' discovery.
The Court noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA)
directs a district court to look at current conditions.
In the instant case the plaintiff's alleged specific facts that, if true,
would amount to current and ongoing constitutional violations. Therefore,
the prisoners were entitled to an opportunity to present evidence in
support of their claims. See: Ginest v. The Board of County Commissioners
of Carbon County, 295 F.Supp.2d 1274 (USDC D WY 2003).
In opposing the defendants' motion for immediate termination of the consent
decree, the plaintiffs' specifically alleged the defendants should be held
in contempt for continuing to violate the consent decree and prisoners'
Eighth Amendment rights to adequate mental health care, adequate and
accurate medical records, and the proper dispensing of medications.
To support these claims the plaintiffs sought discovery of medical records
belonging to the plaintiff class. The defendants refused to comply without
a signed release from each prisoner for whom records were sought.
On plaintiffs motion to discover the records the district court held on
February 10, 2004, that in prisoner class action lawsuits it is well
established "that an Eighth Amendment violation may be established by
showing repeated instances of patients receiving improper health care--a
pattern and practice of medical mistreatment."
The Court further held that although institutions and patients have a
privacy interest in keeping medical records confidential, those interests
"must yield to the federal interest in discovering whether public officials
and public Institutions are violating federal civil rights."
The Court additionally noted that "Courts are virtually unanimous in
holding that class counsel in institutional litigation of this nature has a
right to examine client medical records to determine whether a systemic
failure exists in the institution's health care system."
Thus, the court ordered county officials to release the plaintiffs' medical
records, regardless of whether class counsel first submitted signed
releases. The Court did, however, instruct class counsel to keep the
information confidential except to the extent necessary to advise the Court
of violations of federal law. See: Ginest v. Board of County Commissioners
of Carbon County, 306 F.Supp.2d 1158 (USDC D WY 2004).
In this case involving a motion by Carbon County officials to terminate a
1987 consent decree regarding prisoner medical care, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Wyoming twice granted plaintiffs' discovery
motions: once to gather evidence demonstrating ongoing constitutional
violations, and again to access prisoners' medical records.
In August 2003 the defendants--various Carbon County officials, including
the Sheriff--sought immediate termination of a 1987 consent decree
governing medical care at the county jail. The plaintiffs, a class of
current and former county prisoners, opposed the motion and moved for
additional discovery.
After examining the issues, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and
denied the defendants' motion pending completion of the plaintiffs' discovery.
The Court noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA)
directs a district court to look at current conditions.
In the instant case the plaintiff's alleged specific facts that, if true,
would amount to current and ongoing constitutional violations. Therefore,
the prisoners were entitled to an opportunity to present evidence in
support of their claims. See: Ginest v. The Board of County Commissioners
of Carbon County, 295 F.Supp.2d 1274 (USDC D WY 2003).
In opposing the defendants' motion for immediate termination of the consent
decree, the plaintiffs' specifically alleged the defendants should be held
in contempt for continuing to violate the consent decree and prisoners'
Eighth Amendment rights to adequate mental health care, adequate and
accurate medical records, and the proper dispensing of medications.
To support these claims the plaintiffs sought discovery of medical records
belonging to the plaintiff class. The defendants refused to comply without
a signed release from each prisoner for whom records were sought.
On plaintiffs motion to discover the records the district court held on
February 10, 2004, that in prisoner class action lawsuits it is well
established "that an Eighth Amendment violation may be established by
showing repeated instances of patients receiving improper health care--a
pattern and practice of medical mistreatment."
The Court further held that although institutions and patients have a
privacy interest in keeping medical records confidential, those interests
"must yield to the federal interest in discovering whether public officials
and public Institutions are violating federal civil rights."
The Court additionally noted that "Courts are virtually unanimous in
holding that class counsel in institutional litigation of this nature has a
right to examine client medical records to determine whether a systemic
failure exists in the institution's health care system."
Thus, the court ordered county officials to release the plaintiffs' medical
records, regardless of whether class counsel first submitted signed
releases. The Court did, however, instruct class counsel to keep the
information confidential except to the extent necessary to advise the Court
of violations of federal law. See: Ginest v. Board of County Commissioners
of Carbon County, 306 F.Supp.2d 1158 (USDC D WY 2004).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Ginest v. Board of County Commissioners of Carbon
| Year | 2004 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 306 F.Supp.2d 1158 (USDC D WY 2004) |
| Level | District Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
DEAN GINEST, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CARBON COUNTY, et al. Defendants,
Civ. No. C86-0310-J
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
306 F. Supp. 2d 1158; 2004 U.S. Dist.
February 10, 2004, Decided
February 10, 2004, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Ginest v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 2003 U.S. Dist. (D. Wyo., 2003)
DISPOSITION: [**1] Plaintiffs' motion seeking to discover medical information granted.
COUNSEL: For Plaintiffs: Thomas A. Thompson, Rawlins, WY.
For Defendants: Stephen L. Pevar, Hartford, CT.
JUDGES: Alan B. Johnson, U.S. District Judge, District of Wyoming.
OPINION BY: Alan B. Johnson
OPINION:
[*1159] ORDER ALLOWING DISCOVERY OF INMATE MEDICAL INFORMATION
Plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking to hold Defendants in contempt of court for violating four requirements of this Court's 1987 Consent Order and Decree. Three of these requirements concern the right of inmates to receive proper medical care, specifically: (1) the right to adequate psychiatric and psychological care, (2) the right to accurate and adequate medical records, and (3) the right to proper dispensing of prescription medication.
Plaintiffs' contempt motion alleges that Defendants' health care program suffers from three systematic deficiencies, each of which, they claim, violates the Consent Decree and the Eighth Amendment. It is well established in class actions of this nature that an Eighth Amendment violation [**2] may be established by showing repeated instances of patients receiving improper health care--a pattern and practice of medical mistreatment. See Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 575 (10th Cir. 1980); French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1254 (7th Cir.1985); Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir.1977).
Defendants have taken the position that no inmate medical records will be produced unless class counsel first submits a signed release from the inmate whose files are sought. Defendants have denied class counsel's requests for medical information in each instance in which a signed release has not been tendered.
Courts are virtually unanimous in holding that class counsel in institutional litigation of this nature has a right to examine client medical records to determine whether a systemic failure exists in the institution's health care system. See Doe v. Meachum, 126 F.R.D. 444, 450 (D. Conn. 1989) (compelling jail to produce inmate medical records in class action litigation involving HIV health care); N.O. v. Callahan, 110 F.R.D. 637, 646-47 (D. Mass.1986) (allowing access to medical records of students in school for [**3] the mentally retarded); Garrity v. Thomson, 81 F.R.D. 633, 635-36 (D.N.H. 1979) (similar); Lora v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York, 74 F.R.D. 565 (E.D.N.Y. 1977) (allowing access to diagnostic and referral files of mentally handicapped children).
Admittedly, the custodian of these medical records (the institution) and the patients themselves have a privacy interest in keeping those records confidential. However, in class action institutional litigation of type at issue here, "the individual privacy interest and state policies, through cognizable, cannot prevail either as a constitutional or federal evidentiary matter." Lora, 74 F.R.D. at 584. Accord: N.O. v. Callahan, 110 F.R.D. at 646-47; Garrity, 81 F.R.D. at 635-36. Individual and state [*1160] privacy interests must yield to the federal interest in discovering whether public officials and public Institutions are violating federal civil rights. "In a civil rights action brought pursuant to a federal claim, state statutory privileges are not binding." Doe v. Meachum, 126 F.R.D. at 449. In reaching this conclusion, the Court is influenced [**4] by the fact that disclosure of the requested medical information "is sought by professionals whose purpose it is to protect the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff class," and class counsel will keep the information confidential except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to advise the Court of violations of federal law. See Doe, 126 F.R.D. at 449.
Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion seeking to discover medical information relating to the Plaintiff class, although this information shall be kept confidential except to the extent necessary to advise the Court of any violations of federal law. Defendants should therefore produce the medical files and provide medical information relating to members of the Plaintiff class. In addition, Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to depose all persons, including private physicians and other health care providers, who have given medical care, assistance, or advice to a member of the Plaintiff class concerning that patient, regardless of whether class counsel first submits a release signed by the patient about whom the information is being sought.
This issues addressed in this order were presented to the Court [**5] in a hearing held August 13, 2003, at which time the Court issued an oral ruling from the Bench. The Court now issues its written Order.
Dated this 10th day of February, 2004.
ALAN JOHNSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Civ. No. C86-0310-J
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
306 F. Supp. 2d 1158; 2004 U.S. Dist.
February 10, 2004, Decided
February 10, 2004, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Ginest v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 2003 U.S. Dist. (D. Wyo., 2003)
DISPOSITION: [**1] Plaintiffs' motion seeking to discover medical information granted.
COUNSEL: For Plaintiffs: Thomas A. Thompson, Rawlins, WY.
For Defendants: Stephen L. Pevar, Hartford, CT.
JUDGES: Alan B. Johnson, U.S. District Judge, District of Wyoming.
OPINION BY: Alan B. Johnson
OPINION:
[*1159] ORDER ALLOWING DISCOVERY OF INMATE MEDICAL INFORMATION
Plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking to hold Defendants in contempt of court for violating four requirements of this Court's 1987 Consent Order and Decree. Three of these requirements concern the right of inmates to receive proper medical care, specifically: (1) the right to adequate psychiatric and psychological care, (2) the right to accurate and adequate medical records, and (3) the right to proper dispensing of prescription medication.
Plaintiffs' contempt motion alleges that Defendants' health care program suffers from three systematic deficiencies, each of which, they claim, violates the Consent Decree and the Eighth Amendment. It is well established in class actions of this nature that an Eighth Amendment violation [**2] may be established by showing repeated instances of patients receiving improper health care--a pattern and practice of medical mistreatment. See Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 575 (10th Cir. 1980); French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1254 (7th Cir.1985); Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir.1977).
Defendants have taken the position that no inmate medical records will be produced unless class counsel first submits a signed release from the inmate whose files are sought. Defendants have denied class counsel's requests for medical information in each instance in which a signed release has not been tendered.
Courts are virtually unanimous in holding that class counsel in institutional litigation of this nature has a right to examine client medical records to determine whether a systemic failure exists in the institution's health care system. See Doe v. Meachum, 126 F.R.D. 444, 450 (D. Conn. 1989) (compelling jail to produce inmate medical records in class action litigation involving HIV health care); N.O. v. Callahan, 110 F.R.D. 637, 646-47 (D. Mass.1986) (allowing access to medical records of students in school for [**3] the mentally retarded); Garrity v. Thomson, 81 F.R.D. 633, 635-36 (D.N.H. 1979) (similar); Lora v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York, 74 F.R.D. 565 (E.D.N.Y. 1977) (allowing access to diagnostic and referral files of mentally handicapped children).
Admittedly, the custodian of these medical records (the institution) and the patients themselves have a privacy interest in keeping those records confidential. However, in class action institutional litigation of type at issue here, "the individual privacy interest and state policies, through cognizable, cannot prevail either as a constitutional or federal evidentiary matter." Lora, 74 F.R.D. at 584. Accord: N.O. v. Callahan, 110 F.R.D. at 646-47; Garrity, 81 F.R.D. at 635-36. Individual and state [*1160] privacy interests must yield to the federal interest in discovering whether public officials and public Institutions are violating federal civil rights. "In a civil rights action brought pursuant to a federal claim, state statutory privileges are not binding." Doe v. Meachum, 126 F.R.D. at 449. In reaching this conclusion, the Court is influenced [**4] by the fact that disclosure of the requested medical information "is sought by professionals whose purpose it is to protect the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff class," and class counsel will keep the information confidential except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to advise the Court of violations of federal law. See Doe, 126 F.R.D. at 449.
Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion seeking to discover medical information relating to the Plaintiff class, although this information shall be kept confidential except to the extent necessary to advise the Court of any violations of federal law. Defendants should therefore produce the medical files and provide medical information relating to members of the Plaintiff class. In addition, Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to depose all persons, including private physicians and other health care providers, who have given medical care, assistance, or advice to a member of the Plaintiff class concerning that patient, regardless of whether class counsel first submits a release signed by the patient about whom the information is being sought.
This issues addressed in this order were presented to the Court [**5] in a hearing held August 13, 2003, at which time the Court issued an oral ruling from the Bench. The Court now issues its written Order.
Dated this 10th day of February, 2004.
ALAN JOHNSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE