×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Failure to Accommodate Blind Prisoner Violates ADA
A Florida federal district court has held that a private medical
contractor, EMSA Correctional Care, Inc. (EMSA), and Sheriff Ken Jenne
violated a blind prisoner's rights under the Eight Amendment and the
American with Disabilities Act (ADA) when they failed to provide necessary
accommodations and treat the prisoner's medical needs. Kim P. Kruger was
temporarily transferred from a Florida prison to the North Broward
Detention Center (NBDC). In January 1995, Kruger suffered total blindness
and lost all visual activity as a result of Bilateral Optic Atrophy.
When Kruger arrived at NBCD on January 6, 1998, his "talking book" and
electric razor was confiscated, and he was denied a personal aide and/or
walking cane. Kruger was unable to access the law library, participate in
indoor or outdoor recreation, access other parts of NBCD, or participate in
other forms of recreation. His cell was not ADA approved or equipped for
the needs of a blind person. Although he was not physically injured in his
cell, the failure to accommodate his visual needs rendered the facilities
unsafe for him.
On three occasions Kruger was injured when he slipped and fell outside his
cell. On each occasion, EMSA either denied a doctor's recommended
treatment as too expensive, or failed to render an examination and
treatment at all. EMSA moved to dismiss Kruger's 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint arguing it was being sued under a respondent superior theory.
However, the Court found EMSA was put on notice of Kruger's visual
assistance needs by the medical records transferred with him, and Kruger
alleged the delays in providing medical care for his serious medical needs,
and the provision of improper and inadequate medical care, were the direct
result of EMSA's custom, policy, and procedure to save costs by denying
NBCD prisoner's special medical treatment. Therefore, EMSA could be liable
under the Eighth Amendment.
Jenne, who was sued in his individual and official capacities, also sought
dismissal. Kruger had sent Jenne letters requesting accommodations for his
condition, and his attorney did likewise. Jenne ignored these requests
until a state court ordered Jenne to make proper accommodations on April
16, 1998. The ADA does not provide for personal liability, and as the ADA
applied to prisoners [Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 118
S. Ct. 1952 (1998)], Jenne is liable in his official capacity.
Additionally, Jenne can be personally liable under the Eighth Amendment for
failing to take reasonable precautions to protect Kruger from known
dangers. Further, liability can accrue for medical care delays and/or
treatment refusals by NBCD contracted physicians discussed above.
This is not a ruling on the merits, and the district court denied the
defendant's motions to dismiss. See: Kruger v. Jenne, 164 F. Supp. 2d
1330 (S.D. Fla. 2001).
contractor, EMSA Correctional Care, Inc. (EMSA), and Sheriff Ken Jenne
violated a blind prisoner's rights under the Eight Amendment and the
American with Disabilities Act (ADA) when they failed to provide necessary
accommodations and treat the prisoner's medical needs. Kim P. Kruger was
temporarily transferred from a Florida prison to the North Broward
Detention Center (NBDC). In January 1995, Kruger suffered total blindness
and lost all visual activity as a result of Bilateral Optic Atrophy.
When Kruger arrived at NBCD on January 6, 1998, his "talking book" and
electric razor was confiscated, and he was denied a personal aide and/or
walking cane. Kruger was unable to access the law library, participate in
indoor or outdoor recreation, access other parts of NBCD, or participate in
other forms of recreation. His cell was not ADA approved or equipped for
the needs of a blind person. Although he was not physically injured in his
cell, the failure to accommodate his visual needs rendered the facilities
unsafe for him.
On three occasions Kruger was injured when he slipped and fell outside his
cell. On each occasion, EMSA either denied a doctor's recommended
treatment as too expensive, or failed to render an examination and
treatment at all. EMSA moved to dismiss Kruger's 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint arguing it was being sued under a respondent superior theory.
However, the Court found EMSA was put on notice of Kruger's visual
assistance needs by the medical records transferred with him, and Kruger
alleged the delays in providing medical care for his serious medical needs,
and the provision of improper and inadequate medical care, were the direct
result of EMSA's custom, policy, and procedure to save costs by denying
NBCD prisoner's special medical treatment. Therefore, EMSA could be liable
under the Eighth Amendment.
Jenne, who was sued in his individual and official capacities, also sought
dismissal. Kruger had sent Jenne letters requesting accommodations for his
condition, and his attorney did likewise. Jenne ignored these requests
until a state court ordered Jenne to make proper accommodations on April
16, 1998. The ADA does not provide for personal liability, and as the ADA
applied to prisoners [Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 118
S. Ct. 1952 (1998)], Jenne is liable in his official capacity.
Additionally, Jenne can be personally liable under the Eighth Amendment for
failing to take reasonable precautions to protect Kruger from known
dangers. Further, liability can accrue for medical care delays and/or
treatment refusals by NBCD contracted physicians discussed above.
This is not a ruling on the merits, and the district court denied the
defendant's motions to dismiss. See: Kruger v. Jenne, 164 F. Supp. 2d
1330 (S.D. Fla. 2001).
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
Kruger v. Jenne
| Year | 2001 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 164 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2001). |
| Level | District Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
KIM P. KRUGER, Plaintiffs vs. KEN JENNE, Sheriff of Broward County, and EMSA CORRECTIONAL CARE, INC., Defendants
CASE NO. 98-6616-CIV-JORDAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, MIAMI DIVISION
164 F. Supp. 2d 1330; 2000 U.S. Dist.
June 19, 2000, Decided
June 19, 2000, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Kruger v. Jenne, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 2000 U.S. Dist. (S.D. Fla. 2000)
DISPOSITION: [**1] Magistrate's recommendation adopted. Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint DENIED. Defendant's motion for a more definite statement DENIED.
COUNSEL: For KIM P. KRUGER, plaintiff: Jeffrey D. DeCarlo, Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, Miami, FL.
Kim P. Kruger, plaintiff, Pro se, Wewahitchka, FL.
For SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, BARBARA LAW, W. ROBINSON, MATTHEWS, MCALLISTER, SUSAN MCCAMPBELL, BARBARA EVANS, defendants: Summer Marie Barranco, Purdy Jolly & Giuffreda, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
For E.M.S.A. CORRECTIONA, defendant: Jay Cohen, Matthew David Klein, Daniel Alter, Kristen JoAnn Loerch, Bunnell Woulfe Kirschbaum Keller & McIntyre, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
JUDGES: Adalberto Jordan, United States District Judge.
OPINIONBY: Adalberto Jordan
OPINION:
[*1331] ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding the defendants' motions to dismiss and Sheriff Jenne's motion for a more definite statement as well as Sheriff Jenne's objections to the report. Having conducted a de novo review of the arguments presented and the magistrate judge's recommended resolution, the Court adopts the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [**2] as an order.
The defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint [D.E. 86 & 88-1] are therefore DENIED. Sheriff Jenne's motion for a more definite statement [D.E. 88-2] is likewise DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida, this 19th day of June, 2000.
Adalberto Jordan
United States District Judge
CASE NO. 98-6616-CIV-JORDAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, MIAMI DIVISION
164 F. Supp. 2d 1330; 2000 U.S. Dist.
June 19, 2000, Decided
June 19, 2000, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Kruger v. Jenne, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 2000 U.S. Dist. (S.D. Fla. 2000)
DISPOSITION: [**1] Magistrate's recommendation adopted. Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint DENIED. Defendant's motion for a more definite statement DENIED.
COUNSEL: For KIM P. KRUGER, plaintiff: Jeffrey D. DeCarlo, Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, Miami, FL.
Kim P. Kruger, plaintiff, Pro se, Wewahitchka, FL.
For SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, BARBARA LAW, W. ROBINSON, MATTHEWS, MCALLISTER, SUSAN MCCAMPBELL, BARBARA EVANS, defendants: Summer Marie Barranco, Purdy Jolly & Giuffreda, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
For E.M.S.A. CORRECTIONA, defendant: Jay Cohen, Matthew David Klein, Daniel Alter, Kristen JoAnn Loerch, Bunnell Woulfe Kirschbaum Keller & McIntyre, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
JUDGES: Adalberto Jordan, United States District Judge.
OPINIONBY: Adalberto Jordan
OPINION:
[*1331] ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding the defendants' motions to dismiss and Sheriff Jenne's motion for a more definite statement as well as Sheriff Jenne's objections to the report. Having conducted a de novo review of the arguments presented and the magistrate judge's recommended resolution, the Court adopts the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [**2] as an order.
The defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint [D.E. 86 & 88-1] are therefore DENIED. Sheriff Jenne's motion for a more definite statement [D.E. 88-2] is likewise DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida, this 19th day of June, 2000.
Adalberto Jordan
United States District Judge