Case: Turner v. Wetzel

Plaintiff, a person serving a life sentence in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, was diagnosed with Hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the mid 1990s and, in this lawsuit, sought to compel the Department to provide direct acting antiviral (DAA) treatment. 

On January 19, 2018, plaintiff filed this action pro se in the Court of Common Pleas for Schuylkill County against various employees of the Department of Corrections ("DOC defendants") and Correct Care Solutions, the Department's contracted health provider ("medical defendants"). He alleged that defendants had denied him DAA treatment because of cost, rather than for medical reasons, and that he had developed cirrhosis (severe scarring of the liver) while awaiting treatment.  He claimed that this constituted deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and he sought declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages.  Defendants promptly removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on February 13, 2018.  Upon removal, the case was assigned to District Judge Matthew William Brann and Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito Jr. 

On April 10, 2018, the medical defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Magistrate Judge Saporito recommended granting the motion as to the Section 1983 claims against the medical defendants, but denying it as to the professional negligence claims, which would be permitted to proceed to discovery.  He reasoned that the complaint failed to allege facts showing the requisite personal involvement or vicarious liability to support the constitutional claims. On December 28, 2018, which the district court adopted in full on February 7, 2019, permitting plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 28 days. 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 19, 2019, supplementing the original complaint with various exhibits and adding two additional medical defendants. On March 12, 2019, the DOC and medical defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, which were again referred to Magistrate Judge Saporito for initial consideration.  Magistrate Judge Saporito issued a report and recommendation on January 13, 2020, recommending that the court grant in part and deny in part the motions to dismiss.  In particular, Magistrate Judge Saporito again recommended granting the motion to dismiss the constitutional claims against the medical defendants for failure to adequate plead personal involvement or vicarious liability in the alleged violations.  Magistrate Judge Saporito also recommended granting the motion to dismiss the constitutional claims against the DOC defendants, reasoning that the plaintiff's "lay opinion" about the proper course of treatment and "conclusory allegation" that DAAs had been denied because of cost did not suffice to state a claim for relief.  Therefore, he recommended dismissing the federal constitutional claims, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and remanding to state court.  2020 WL 2462894. On March 18, 2020, Judge Brann adopted the report and recommendation and recommendation in part, but concluded that plaintiff had stated a viable cruel and unusual punishment claim against two individual medical defendants, and one individual DOC defendant, all treating physicians, and Correct Care Solutions, and denied the motion to dismiss as to those defendants.  Judge Brann reasoned that, as to the individual defendants, the allegation of denial of DAA treatment for purely cost reasons sufficed to state a claim.  As to Correct Care Solutions, plaintiff's allegation of a policy preventing treatment based on cost similarly sufficed to survive dismissal.  Therefore, the district court permitted the federal constitutional claims and state law claims to proceed against the medical defendants.  2020 WL 1284514. 

After discovery, on August 31, 2020, the medical defendants and the remaining DOC defendant filed separate motions for summary judgment.  On September 8, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking resolution of an issue related to legal mail.  In a report and recommendation issued August 30, 2021, Magistrate Judge Saporito recommended denying the motion for a preliminary injunction and granting defendants' motions for summary judgment.  First, as to the motion for preliminary injunction, he concluded that the issue was moot because plaintiff had been given the materials at issue.  Second, as to the individual DOC defendant, Magistrate Judge Saporito recommended granting summary judgment for misjoinder, because no such individual apparently existed.  Finally, as to the medical defendants, Magistrate Judge Saporito recommended granting summary judgment principally because, over the last several years, plaintiff had been repeatedly monitored and evaluated for treatment and, in 2019, shortly after his liver became chirrotic, had received DAA treatment and been cured.  This course of treatment, absent any evidence of cost-based delays, was not sufficient to support a deliberate indifference claim. 2021 WL 5225638. The district court adopted the recommended ruling in full on September 28, 2021, and directed the clerk to close the case. 2021 WL 4438247.  

Plaintiff, still unrepresented by counsel, appealed.  On August 19, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part.  The appellate court vacated the grant of summary judgment to the medical defendants on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, citing plaintiff's claims that he sought DAA treatment for nearly four years and that he was denied treatment based on non-medical reasons including cost (as he alleged to have been told by someone on medical staff).  Therefore, the court reasoned, "there exists a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the policy caused a delay in treating [plaintiff] with antiviral medications, during which time he developed cirrhosis, and whether such delay constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment." 2022 WL 3572693.   

The case returned to the district court.  On October 31, 2022, the district court conditionally granted plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel and stayed the case for 90 days for purposes of finding pro bono counsel; on February 3, 2023, the stay was extended for an additional 90 days.  The plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment, on February 10, 2023. As of June 2024, this case is ongoing.