On June 12, 2015, three individuals incarcerated and suffering from complications due to Hepatitis C viral infections filed this class action suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs sued the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of the Eighth Amendment, and of Article I § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Represented by private counsel and the PA Institutional Law Project, the plaintiffs alleged that the DOC had a policy and practice of denying necessary medical care to inmates diagnosed with Hepatitis C. In denying care, the DOC placed the inmates at serious and unnecessary risk for irreparable harm and death. The plaintiffs estimated that 20% of the state's prisoners were infected with Hepatitis C at the time of the lawsuit. The defendants did not authorize treatment with drugs that recently were established to be effective and the new standard of care, and in fact ceased providing treatment altogether. The plaintiffs sued for declaratory and injunctive relief.
On March 7, 2016, Judge John Padova ordered that the motion for class certification be stayed pending resolution of the defendant's motion to dismiss. On March 21, 2016, Judge Padova issued an order partially granting and partially denying the defendants' motion to dismiss. 2016 WL 1125580. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 3, 2017, and the defendants filed another motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on February 8. The court ruled on this motion on August 8, 2017, granting it in part and denying it in part. The court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that defendants had been deliberately indifferent, and that portion of the complaint met the standard to survive a motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the allegations of the medical defendants, finding that they were not responsible for creating the DOC's policy and could not be held responsible for it. A number of additional claims were dismissed pursuant to the agreement of the parties. 2017 WL 3394605.
The defendants moved for summary judgment on October 2, 2017. Meanwhile, the court granted the plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification on May 24, 2018. The class was certified as all persons who are currently incarcerated in a Pennsylvania DOC facility with a diagnosed condition of Chronic Hepatitis C, who have at least twelve weeks remaining on their sentences, and who have a life expectancy of over a year. 2018 WL 2388665. On July 12, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion with respect to one plaintiffs' personal claims for injunctive relief, the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief under Article I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and a portion of the medical malpractice claim. The court denied the remainder of the counts. 2018 WL 3388305. The parties held a settlement conference on October 17, 2018.
On November 19, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. The defendant agreed to replace its current Hepatitis C protocol with a new protocol that incorporated the terms of the settlement agreement. The defendant agreed to provide enhanced medical evaluation and treatment to class members, including direct-acting antivirals to class members when necessary. The settlement agreement also amended the class to include inmates with Hepatitis C who entered the Department of Corrections after the date of class certification. DOC also agreed to provide ongoing reports to plaintiffs' counsel with data regarding testing, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of all class members in prison currently diagnosed with Hepatitis C. The agreement also allowed for a notice-and-comment period prior to any revisions or changes to the Hepatitis C Protocol. Plaintiffs' counsel agreed it would provide the defendant with notice of any potential noncompliance. The parties agreed to enter into good-faith discussion to solve any disputes that may arise from unforeseen circumstances. The parties agreed that the Settlement Agreement was to be subjected to the final approval of the court, and that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement and to resolve any disputes that may arise. The DOC agreed to pay the plaintiffs’ $195,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
The court approved the settlement agreement on February 7, 2019. The court retains jurisdiction over the case until June 30, 2022. The court may only extend the agreement in one year increments in the event of a finding of noncompliance with its terms, but not beyond five years from the date of approval. Therefore, the case remains ongoing.
Virginia Weeks - 09/29/2016
Elizabeth Heise - 11/10/2018
Eva Richardson - 05/27/2019
compress summary
