Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: Anstett v. State of Oregon

3:01-cv-01619 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Filed Date: Nov. 1, 2001

Closed Date: 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 1, 2001, plaintiffs, current and former inmates of the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, challenging the defendants' procedures and policies for testing and treating the Hepatitic C Virus (HCV) in the Oregon inmate population. The plaintiffs brought a number of federal and state law claims, including a claim that the ODOC's HCV treatment policies violated the Eighth Amendment's prohi…

On November 1, 2001, plaintiffs, current and former inmates of the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, challenging the defendants' procedures and policies for testing and treating the Hepatitic C Virus (HCV) in the Oregon inmate population. The plaintiffs brought a number of federal and state law claims, including a claim that the ODOC's HCV treatment policies violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, as well as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (Americans with Disabilities Act) alleging that the HCV policies improperly denied benefits by reason of disability. The plaintiffs also alleged that the ODOC officials used de facto policies to delay and deny treating inmates for HCV. The plaintiffs sought compensatory and injunctive relief, including an order that defendants create a new panel of experts to evaluate HCV treatment policies and make recommendations to ensure policies are in accord with the standard of care in the community as a whole.

On December 19, 2002, the court certified a mandatory class under rule 23(b)(2) consisting of "all inmates who are infected with the HCV virus and who are in the custody and control of the Oregon Department of Corrections." Additionally, the court certified a subclass consisting of "all inmates who were incarcerated under the control and custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections and who were infected with the HCV virus during the time of their incarceration." The court explained that this subclass of formerly incarcerated individuals could seek only declaratory relief in this action.

On April 7, 2004, the parties filed a stipulated motion to stay proceedings pursuant to a settlement and release filed with the court that same day. The settlement provided for immediate dismissal of the individual claims of individually named plaintiffs and individual class members without prejudice as to all defendants. Once the final chart review concluded and appropriate orders were entered, the plaintiff class would dismiss all claims against defendants with prejudice, except that individual class members would not be barred from filing subsequent individual actions in their own name. The settlement also provided for immediate dismissal of all individual defendants without prejudice to individual class members only, but with prejudice to plaintiff class claims and class issues. The defendants also agreed to pay $175,000 to the plaintiffs class attorney within 15 days of settlement, along with some additional fees for work during the pendency of the case.

The settlement provided for the creation of a Medical Review Panel (MRP), that would review the written 2003 HCV treatment guidelines and healthcare delivery system within the ODOC ("Guidelines"). The three doctors on the panel were specified by the parties and would be paid by the defendants for their work. The MRP would also complete a two part review of the treatment of HCV infected prisoners within the ODOC, looking first at the Guidelines and then at 100 randomly selected medical charts. It also provided for the appointment of Judge Donald Ashmanskas as Special Master for oversight of administration of the agreement by the court.

The MRP would first examine the Guidelines and determine whether they reflected a reasonable community standard of care appropriate for the treatment of Hepatitis C. If the MRP determined that modifications, revisions, or amendments to the Guidelines are recommended, the MRP would identify the reasons supporting those recommendations and suggest specific changes to the policy and healthcare delivery system. Upon completion of its review, the MRP would issue a written draft report to the parties within 60 days, or no later than June 7, 2004. From there, the parties would have 30 days to submit brief written comments to the MRP. The MRP would then issue its final report within 30 days of receipt of the parties' written comments to the draft report.

After submitting its final report on the Guidelines review, the MRP would commence an 18 month chart review of up to 100 medical charts of class members. The MRP would review the selected charts to assess compliance of the treatment utilized for the specific patient with the existing Guidelines and the medical standard of care. The MRP would then follow a similar process for reporting, with a draft issued to parties first before a final report to the special master.

Any disputes concerning the enactment of the recommendations made by the MRP would be brought to the special master, who would make a determination on the dispute and issue findings. The only significant dispute was decided on November 14, 2005, when the special master found that it was permissible for the Hep-C treatment guidelines to require certain inmates to participate in Narcotics Anonymous (NA) or Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) for at least one month to receive treatment.

On July 14, 2006, the special master accepted and adopted the final MRP Report, which found that the Oregon ODOC 2003 guidelines met the community standard of care with respect to evaluation and treatment, but also found that the guidelines were deficient in some respects. Specifically, the report found that the guidelines did not comply with the community standard of care with respect to implementation and timing of Hepatitis C screening and treatment. The court then granted the parties joint motion to implement new guidelines that incorporated the MRP's recommendations, and to extend the review period to allow for the MRP to conduct the chart review phase of the settlement.

On April 6, 2007, the MRP final report for the chart review phase was submitted to the special master. The report, based on the review of 23 individual's medical charts conducted in January 2007, found that 20 of 23 cases of Hepatitis C care were generally consistent with the guidelines. The report also noted that the MRP revised guidelines had been distributed and that there was more attention being given to timeliness of evaluation and treatment. The report noted some suggested improvements, but did not make any finding that the treatment fell below the community standard of care.

On August 31, 2007, the court issued a stipulated judgment of dismissal, dismissing the case with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement.

Summary Authors

Chris Pollack (3/28/2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5115269/parties/anstett-v-state-of-oregon/


Judge(s)

Ashmanskas, Donald C. (Oregon)

Brown, Anna J. (Oregon)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Burrows, Michelle R. (Oregon)

Kohler, Michele Lynne (Oregon)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Abrams, Marc (Oregon)

Myers, Hardy (Oregon)

Rennick, Lynne D. (Oregon)

Williamson, Leonard W. (Oregon)

Judge(s)

Ashmanskas, Donald C. (Oregon)

Brown, Anna J. (Oregon)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Burrows, Michelle R. (Oregon)

Kohler, Michele Lynne (Oregon)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Abrams, Marc (Oregon)

Myers, Hardy (Oregon)

Rennick, Lynne D. (Oregon)

Williamson, Leonard W. (Oregon)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:01-cv-01619

Docket [PACER]

Anstett v. Oregon

Aug. 31, 2007

Aug. 31, 2007

Docket
84

3:01-cv-01619

Opinion and Order

Dec. 19, 2002

Dec. 19, 2002

Order/Opinion
129

3:01-cv-01619

Motion for Permanent Injunction

Feb. 20, 2004

Feb. 20, 2004

Pleading / Motion / Brief
137

3:01-cv-01619

Order

March 8, 2004

March 8, 2004

Order/Opinion
149

3:01-cv-01619

Stipulated Motion for and Protective Order

Anstett v. Oregon

April 6, 2004

April 6, 2004

Order/Opinion
142

3:01-cv-01619

Settlement and Release

Anstett v. Oregon

April 7, 2004

April 7, 2004

Settlement Agreement
146

3:01-cv-01619

Order

April 8, 2004

April 8, 2004

Order/Opinion
148

3:01-cv-01619

Civil Minutes

Anstett v. Oregon

April 8, 2004

April 8, 2004

Order/Opinion
180

3:01-cv-01619

Opinion and Order of the Special Master

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

Order/Opinion
198

3:01-cv-01619

Report From the Hepatitis C Medical Review Panel

April 6, 2007

April 6, 2007

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5115269/anstett-v-state-of-oregon/

Last updated Sept. 5, 2022, 3:10 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Complaint

Nov. 1, 2001

Nov. 1, 2001

RECAP
2

Exhibits

Nov. 1, 2001

Nov. 1, 2001

RECAP
3

Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order

Nov. 1, 2001

Nov. 1, 2001

PACER
4

Certificate of Service

Nov. 7, 2001

Nov. 7, 2001

PACER
5

Waiver of Service Summons

Nov. 8, 2001

Nov. 8, 2001

PACER
6

Description not available

Nov. 8, 2001

Nov. 8, 2001

PACER
7

Notice of Dismissal of Party

Nov. 9, 2001

Nov. 9, 2001

PACER
8

Affidavit

Nov. 9, 2001

Nov. 9, 2001

PACER
9

Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines

Dec. 6, 2001

Dec. 6, 2001

PACER
10

Affidavit

Dec. 6, 2001

Dec. 6, 2001

PACER
11

Scheduling

Dec. 7, 2001

Dec. 7, 2001

PACER
12

Motion for Extension of Time to Answer a Complaint/Petition

March 7, 2002

March 7, 2002

PACER
13

Affidavit

March 7, 2002

March 7, 2002

PACER
14

Scheduling

March 14, 2002

March 14, 2002

PACER
15

Amended Complaint

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
16

Motion to certify class

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
17

Memorandum in Support

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
18

Affidavit

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
19

Certificate of Service

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
20

Waiver of Service Summons

April 15, 2002

April 15, 2002

PACER
21

Scheduling

April 25, 2002

April 25, 2002

PACER
22

Notice

May 16, 2002

May 16, 2002

PACER
23

Motion - Miscellaneous

May 24, 2002

May 24, 2002

PACER
24

Memorandum in Opposition

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

PACER
25

Affidavit

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

PACER
26

Certificate of Service

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

PACER
27

Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

PACER
28

Affidavit

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

PACER
29

Motion for Extension of Time to Answer a Complaint/Petition

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

PACER
30

Affidavit

May 30, 2002

May 30, 2002

PACER
31

Scheduling

June 6, 2002

June 6, 2002

PACER
32

Reply to Motion

June 7, 2002

June 7, 2002

PACER
33

Scheduling

June 11, 2002

June 11, 2002

PACER
34

Answer to Amended Complaint

June 17, 2002

June 17, 2002

PACER
35

Prisoner Civil Rights Scheduling Order

June 19, 2002

June 19, 2002

PACER
36

Scheduling

June 20, 2002

June 20, 2002

PACER
37

Motion for Extension of Time

June 21, 2002

June 21, 2002

PACER
38

Certificate of Service

June 21, 2002

June 21, 2002

PACER
39

Scheduling

June 25, 2002

June 25, 2002

PACER
40

Memorandum in Opposition

July 15, 2002

July 15, 2002

PACER
41

Motion to Strike

July 18, 2002

July 18, 2002

PACER
42

Affidavit

July 18, 2002

July 18, 2002

PACER
43

Certificate of Service

July 18, 2002

July 18, 2002

PACER
44

Memorandum in Support

July 22, 2002

July 22, 2002

PACER
45

Reply to Motion

July 23, 2002

July 23, 2002

PACER
46

Motion to Strike

July 23, 2002

July 23, 2002

PACER
47

Affidavit

July 23, 2002

July 23, 2002

PACER
48

Affidavit

July 23, 2002

July 23, 2002

PACER
49

Certificate of Service

July 23, 2002

July 23, 2002

PACER
50

Response to Motion

July 23, 2002

July 23, 2002

PACER
51

Supplement

July 26, 2002

July 26, 2002

PACER
52

Certificate of Service

July 26, 2002

July 26, 2002

PACER
54

Certificate of Service

July 26, 2002

July 26, 2002

PACER
53

Affidavit

July 29, 2002

July 29, 2002

PACER
56

Scheduling

July 30, 2002

July 30, 2002

PACER
55

Scheduling

July 31, 2002

July 31, 2002

PACER
57

Notice

July 31, 2002

July 31, 2002

PACER
58

Response to Motion

Aug. 12, 2002

Aug. 12, 2002

PACER
59

Joint Status Report

Aug. 16, 2002

Aug. 16, 2002

PACER
60

Motion to Compel

Aug. 20, 2002

Aug. 20, 2002

PACER
61

Memorandum in Support

Aug. 20, 2002

Aug. 20, 2002

PACER
62

Declaration

Aug. 20, 2002

Aug. 20, 2002

PACER
63

Certificate of Service

Aug. 20, 2002

Aug. 20, 2002

PACER
64

Reply to Motion

Aug. 26, 2002

Aug. 26, 2002

PACER
65

Motion for Leave

Aug. 26, 2002

Aug. 26, 2002

PACER
66

Affidavit

Aug. 26, 2002

Aug. 26, 2002

PACER
67

Motion for Extension of Time

Aug. 26, 2002

Aug. 26, 2002

PACER
68

Certificate of Service

Aug. 26, 2002

Aug. 26, 2002

PACER
69

Response to Motion

Aug. 29, 2002

Aug. 29, 2002

PACER
71

Jury Demand

Sept. 11, 2002

Sept. 11, 2002

PACER
72

Jury Demand

Sept. 11, 2002

Sept. 11, 2002

PACER
73

Certificate of Service

Sept. 11, 2002

Sept. 11, 2002

PACER
70

Scheduling

Sept. 12, 2002

Sept. 12, 2002

PACER
74

Certificate of Service

Sept. 13, 2002

Sept. 13, 2002

PACER
75

Scheduling

Sept. 26, 2002

Sept. 26, 2002

PACER
76

Report

Oct. 9, 2002

Oct. 9, 2002

PACER
77

Certificate of Service

Oct. 9, 2002

Oct. 9, 2002

PACER
78

Motion for Extension of Time

Oct. 9, 2002

Oct. 9, 2002

PACER
79

Scheduling

Oct. 9, 2002

Oct. 9, 2002

PACER
80

Scheduling

Oct. 15, 2002

Oct. 15, 2002

PACER
81

Motion Hearing Held

Nov. 7, 2002

Nov. 7, 2002

PACER
82

Transcript of Proceedings

Nov. 27, 2002

Nov. 27, 2002

PACER
83

Report

Dec. 5, 2002

Dec. 5, 2002

PACER
84

Order on Motion to Certify Class

Dec. 19, 2002

Dec. 19, 2002

Clearinghouse
85

Motion for Extension of Time

Dec. 23, 2002

Dec. 23, 2002

PACER
86

Report

Dec. 23, 2002

Dec. 23, 2002

PACER
87

Scheduling

Jan. 7, 2003

Jan. 7, 2003

PACER
88

Report

Jan. 14, 2003

Jan. 14, 2003

PACER
89

Motion for Extension of Time

Feb. 24, 2003

Feb. 24, 2003

PACER
90

Affidavit

Feb. 24, 2003

Feb. 24, 2003

PACER
92

Memorandum in Opposition

Feb. 26, 2003

Feb. 26, 2003

PACER
93

Certificate of Service

Feb. 26, 2003

Feb. 26, 2003

PACER
94

Affidavit

Feb. 26, 2003

Feb. 26, 2003

PACER
91

Scheduling

Feb. 27, 2003

Feb. 27, 2003

PACER
95

Scheduling

March 3, 2003

March 3, 2003

PACER
96

Motion Hearing Held

March 13, 2003

March 13, 2003

PACER
97

Attorney Appearance

April 28, 2003

April 28, 2003

PACER
98

Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines

May 1, 2003

May 1, 2003

PACER
99

Affidavit

May 1, 2003

May 1, 2003

PACER
101

Notice

May 2, 2003

May 2, 2003

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Oregon

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Hepatitis C Treatment in Jails and Prisons

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 1, 2001

Closing Date: 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Current and former inmates who were infected with the hepatitis C virus while in the custody and control of the Oregon Department of Corrections.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Oregon, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Amount Defendant Pays: 175000

Order Duration: 2004 - 2007

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Monitor/Master

Issues

Medical/Mental Health:

Hepatitis

Type of Facility:

Government-run