×

Appeals court chastizes federal, magisterial judges

Three-judge panel rules state inmate can sue prison nurse for lax medical care, criticizes judges for comments about lawsuits filed by inmates

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has cleared the way for a state inmate to sue a prison nurse for lax medical care and in the same opinion chastised a federal judge and a magistrate judge in Johnstown for critical comments about inmate lawsuits.

A three-judge panel that included now Senior Judge D. Michael Fisher and Judges Cheryl Ann Krause and Morton I. Greenberg issued a 31-page opinion that sent a lawsuit filed by inmate Antonio Pearson of Philadelphia back to District Court in Johnstown for trial.

U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson twice had dismissed the lawsuit that contends nearly a decade ago the staff at a state correctional institution delayed medical care for Pearson for pain from which he was suffering.

That pain turned out to be a symptom of an inflamed appendix.

Pearson’s appendix was removed at Somerset Hospital.

When returned to the State Correctional Institution at Somerset, Pearson suffered episodes of bleeding, and again he contends his treatment was delayed.

The bleeding resulted from a urethral tear that occurred during the initial operation.

Pearson, in his lawsuit filed in 2009, listed 28 defendants, but after a review by the District Court in Johnstown, the number of those named in the lawsuit had been reduced to five, including three nurses, a doctor and a corrections officer.

Judge Gibson, based on a recommendation by Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto, in the last review of the lawsuit, dismissed the remaining defendants, but the three-judge panel in Philadelphia sent the case back to the District Court for a third time, indicating that Pearson is entitled to a trial against one of the nurses, David Rhodes.

Gibson on Wednesday scheduled a jury trial in the civil action for May 1, but on Thursday he continued the trial until a date to be set later this year at the request of attorneys Robert J. Ridge for Pearson and Deputy Attorney General Yana L. Warshafsky for Rhodes.

Pearson is charging that the prison medical staff showed “deliberate indifference” toward his complaints of pain that occurred in April 2007 while he was an inmate at SCI Somerset.

He is charging that his constitutional right under the Eighth Amendment barring cruel and unusual punishment was violated.

The case was considered one of “first impression” in the 3rd Circuit because Gibson ruled that Pearson needed a medical expert, like a doctor, to testify on his behalf, which he does not have.

In this case, the appeals court panel ruled that Pearson does not need a medical expert, believing that a jury can decide if the nurse showed deliberate indifference based on the non-medical facts of the case.

Pearson, suffering severe pain, requested medical attention on April, 10, 2007.

One nurse scheduled him for sick call the next day.

On a second visit to the medical department, another nurse believed he may be suffering from a failing gall bladder.

As the night proceeded, Pearson’s pain worsened. Rhodes, the nurse on duty, refused to come to his cell.

“Left in excruciating pain, Pearson screamed for several hours until the officer called medical again,” the opinion reported.

Rhodes, it is alleged, brought a wheelchair to Pearson’s cell, but told Pearson he would not be taken to the medical department unless he placed himself in the wheelchair.

“Unable to walk in pain, Pearson claims that he was forced to crawl across the floor to the wheelchair,” his lawsuit stated.

Once in the infirmary, Rhodes, it is charged, concluded Pearson was showing signs of an appendicitis but only placed the inmate in an observation cell.

A doctor saw Pearson the next day and had him transferred to Somerset Hospital.

The 3rd Circuit opinion written by Fisher, concluded: “Because these circumstances may suggest that nurse Rhodes engaged in a pattern of deliberately indifferent conduct in spite of evidence that he was aware that Pearson faced a substantial risk of harm, there is a genuine issue of fact as to why nurse Rhodes refused to examine Pearson and we cannot conclude as a matter of law his conduct did not run afoul of the (Eighth Amendment).”

“Likewise, Pearson’s claim that he was forced to crawl to the wheelchair creates a genuine dispute as to whether nurse Rhodes acted with deliberate indifference,” it continued.

Rhodes attorney pointed out to the appeals panel that “Pearson’s only evidence of these events is his own testimony,” an indication the officer has yet to tell his side of the story.

But, according to a footnote in the opinion, Rhodes’ attorney conceded that the issue should be sent back to the District Court for trial.

The judges, after agreeing to dismiss civil charges against four of the five remaining defendants, then “regretfully” addressed “one final issue that has percolated over the course of this litigation.”

The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to Gibson “criticized inmate medical claims in general” and “made observations regarding frivolous litigation by prisoners that had no apparent bearing on the merits of Pearson’s claims,” according to the opinion.

The panel stated that it had hoped that the magisterial judge and district judge would “cease making these kinds of irrelevant, categorical statements for several reasons, including they are unnecessary and might cast our judicial system in a bad light by leading an observer to question the impartiality of these proceedings.”

“In addition, it is antithetical to the fair administration of justice to prejudge an entire class of litigants, and we expect courts to conduct, at a minimum, a careful assessment of each party.”

Despite that warning, the most recent opinion continued the criticism of frivolous lawsuits by inmates and indicated “anyone reading the news is familiar with inmates using bodily fluids, especially blood, as weapons.”

The appeals court opinion pointed out that Pearson did not file his lawsuit for recreational purposes but because he genuinely believes officials were indifferent to his medical problems.

“Whether or not he ultimately prevails, equality before the law is one of the founding principles of our government and Pearson deserves to have his case treated as carefully and thoughtfully as any other litigant’s,” the judges wrote.

Despite the opinions expressed by the District Court, the 3rd Circuit panel still believes the Johnstown judges can handle Pearson’s case without bias.

“We trust that our message will be heard on this third remand and that this editorializing will cease going forward,” the opinion concluded.

According to state court records, Pearson, 47, is serving life behind bars for murder. He was sentenced in 1993.

He is now housed at the State Correctional Institu­tion at Greene.

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.39/week.

Subscribe Today