×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Need for New Prosthesis is Serious Medical Need
A New Jersey federal district court held that the failure to provide a
pretrial detainee with a prosthesis is deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. This action was filed by a pretrial detainee against
officials at New Jersey's Cape May County Jail and employees of
Correctional Health Services (CHS). The detainee, a dual amputee, advised
medical staff at Cape May that the feet of his prosthesis were in an
obvious state of disrepair, were secured with postal tape and would bend
inward when he walked. Over a six month period the detainee continued to
complain of pain caused by the ill-fitting prosthesis that was in
disrepair.
The court held the need for a new prosthesis is a "serious medical need,"
for courts have recognized that a medical condition that threatens a
plaintiff's ability to walk, even on a non-permanent basis, falls within
the ambit of a "serious medical need." The court found Dr. Angelique
Beckett examined the detainee several times and agreed he required a new
prosthesis, and a jury needed to determine if she took adequate action to
procure that prosthesis. Dr. Beckett said she took action to obtain a new
prosthesis. The detainee said Dr. Beckett told him CHS would not
compensate a representative from the prosthesis company to examine him for
a fitting.
The court further held that actions by Nurse Mary Franks and Lieutenant
Thomas Shagran must be resolved by a jury. Franks said Shagran advised her
not to order the prosthesis as the detainee was soon going to prison.
Shagran disputed this and admitted that such an action would be improper.
The court denied the defendants summary judgment but entered judgment for
all other defendants for failure to show they were involved or had
knowledge of the detainee's medical need. See: Taylor v. Plousis, 101
F.Supp.2d 255 (D.N.J. 2000).
pretrial detainee with a prosthesis is deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. This action was filed by a pretrial detainee against
officials at New Jersey's Cape May County Jail and employees of
Correctional Health Services (CHS). The detainee, a dual amputee, advised
medical staff at Cape May that the feet of his prosthesis were in an
obvious state of disrepair, were secured with postal tape and would bend
inward when he walked. Over a six month period the detainee continued to
complain of pain caused by the ill-fitting prosthesis that was in
disrepair.
The court held the need for a new prosthesis is a "serious medical need,"
for courts have recognized that a medical condition that threatens a
plaintiff's ability to walk, even on a non-permanent basis, falls within
the ambit of a "serious medical need." The court found Dr. Angelique
Beckett examined the detainee several times and agreed he required a new
prosthesis, and a jury needed to determine if she took adequate action to
procure that prosthesis. Dr. Beckett said she took action to obtain a new
prosthesis. The detainee said Dr. Beckett told him CHS would not
compensate a representative from the prosthesis company to examine him for
a fitting.
The court further held that actions by Nurse Mary Franks and Lieutenant
Thomas Shagran must be resolved by a jury. Franks said Shagran advised her
not to order the prosthesis as the detainee was soon going to prison.
Shagran disputed this and admitted that such an action would be improper.
The court denied the defendants summary judgment but entered judgment for
all other defendants for failure to show they were involved or had
knowledge of the detainee's medical need. See: Taylor v. Plousis, 101
F.Supp.2d 255 (D.N.J. 2000).
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
Taylor v. Plousis
| Year | 2000 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 101 F.Supp.2d 255 (D.N.J. 2000). |
| Level | District Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Taylor v. Plousis, 101 F.Supp.2d 255 (D.N.J. 06/20/2000)
[1] U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
[2] CIVIL ACTION No. 98-3035 (JEI)
[3] 101 F.Supp.2d 255, 2000
[4] June 20, 2000
[5] ROBERT TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
JAMES T. PLOUSIS, SHERIFF OF CAPE MAY COUNTY JAIL, WILLIAM H. FAUVER, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JOHN DOE, MEDICAL DIRECTOR AT THE CAPE MAY COUNTY JAIL, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, JOHN AND JANE DOE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF FREEHOLDERS, JOHN DOE, INMATE AT CAPE MAY COUNTY JAIL, DR. JANE AND JOHN DOE, DOCTORS AT CAPE MAY COUNTY JAIL, JOHN DOE, WARDEN AND ADMINISTRATOR AT CAPE MAY COUNTY JAIL,
DEFENDANTS.
[6] Appearances: Gary Mitchell Gash 81 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601 Counsel for plaintiff. Budd, Larner, Gross, Rosenbaum, Greenberg & Sade, P.C. By: Susanna J. Morris, Esq. Woodland Falls Corporate Park 200 Lake Drive East, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 Counsel for defendants County of Cape May, James T. Plousis, Jean Crean, Lt. Thomas Shagren, and Lt. Edward J. Letts. Murphy & O'connor By: Stephan E. Siegrist, Esq. 65 Haddon Avenue Haddonfield, New Jersey 08033 Counsel for defendants Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dr. Angelique Beckett, Mary Franks, and Dr. Larry Pettis.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph E. Irenas, U.S.D.J.
[8] HONORABLE JOSEPH E. IRENAS
[9] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[10] IRENAS, District Judge
[11] This matter having appeared before the Court upon the summary judgment motion of defendants County of Cape May, James T. Plousis, Jean Crean, Edward Letts, and Thomas Shagren, and the summary judgment motion of defendants Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dr. Larry Pettis, Dr. Angelique Beckett, and Mary Franks, and the Court having considered the submissions of the parties, for the reasons set forth in an Opinion issued by the Court, which findings of fact and conclusions of law are incorporated herein by reference, and for good cause appearing,
[12] IT IS on this 20th day of June, 2000,
[13] ORDERED THAT:
[14] 1. Defendants', County of Cape May, Plousis, Crean, Letts, and Shagren, motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant the County of Cape May;
[15] 2. Defendants', County of Cape May, Plousis, Crean, Letts, and Shagren, motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Crean;
[16] 3. Defendants', County of Cape May, Plousis, Crean, Letts, and Shagren, motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Letts;
[17] 4. Defendants', County of Cape May, Plousis, Crean, Letts, and Shagren, motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Shagren;
[18] 5. Defendants', Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dr. Pettis, Dr. Beckett, and Mary Franks, motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Correctional Health Services, Inc.;
[19] 6. Defendants', Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dr. Pettis, Dr. Beckett, and Mary Franks, motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Pettis;
[20] 7. Defendants', Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dr. Pettis, Dr. Beckett, and Mary Franks, motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Beckett;
[21] 8. Defendants', Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dr. Pettis, Dr. Beckett, and Mary Franks, motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Franks;
[22] 9. The summary judgment motion of all defendants is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff's § 1983 claims based upon the October 7, 1997 assault;
[23] 10. Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief in his Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
[24] 11. Remaining in this case are plaintiff's claim under § 1983 against defendants Beckett, Shagren and Franks.
[1] U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
[2] CIVIL ACTION No. 98-3035 (JEI)
[3] 101 F.Supp.2d 255, 2000
[4] June 20, 2000
[5] ROBERT TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF,
V.
JAMES T. PLOUSIS, SHERIFF OF CAPE MAY COUNTY JAIL, WILLIAM H. FAUVER, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JOHN DOE, MEDICAL DIRECTOR AT THE CAPE MAY COUNTY JAIL, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, JOHN AND JANE DOE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF FREEHOLDERS, JOHN DOE, INMATE AT CAPE MAY COUNTY JAIL, DR. JANE AND JOHN DOE, DOCTORS AT CAPE MAY COUNTY JAIL, JOHN DOE, WARDEN AND ADMINISTRATOR AT CAPE MAY COUNTY JAIL,
DEFENDANTS.
[6] Appearances: Gary Mitchell Gash 81 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601 Counsel for plaintiff. Budd, Larner, Gross, Rosenbaum, Greenberg & Sade, P.C. By: Susanna J. Morris, Esq. Woodland Falls Corporate Park 200 Lake Drive East, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 Counsel for defendants County of Cape May, James T. Plousis, Jean Crean, Lt. Thomas Shagren, and Lt. Edward J. Letts. Murphy & O'connor By: Stephan E. Siegrist, Esq. 65 Haddon Avenue Haddonfield, New Jersey 08033 Counsel for defendants Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dr. Angelique Beckett, Mary Franks, and Dr. Larry Pettis.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph E. Irenas, U.S.D.J.
[8] HONORABLE JOSEPH E. IRENAS
[9] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[10] IRENAS, District Judge
[11] This matter having appeared before the Court upon the summary judgment motion of defendants County of Cape May, James T. Plousis, Jean Crean, Edward Letts, and Thomas Shagren, and the summary judgment motion of defendants Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dr. Larry Pettis, Dr. Angelique Beckett, and Mary Franks, and the Court having considered the submissions of the parties, for the reasons set forth in an Opinion issued by the Court, which findings of fact and conclusions of law are incorporated herein by reference, and for good cause appearing,
[12] IT IS on this 20th day of June, 2000,
[13] ORDERED THAT:
[14] 1. Defendants', County of Cape May, Plousis, Crean, Letts, and Shagren, motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant the County of Cape May;
[15] 2. Defendants', County of Cape May, Plousis, Crean, Letts, and Shagren, motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Crean;
[16] 3. Defendants', County of Cape May, Plousis, Crean, Letts, and Shagren, motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Letts;
[17] 4. Defendants', County of Cape May, Plousis, Crean, Letts, and Shagren, motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Shagren;
[18] 5. Defendants', Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dr. Pettis, Dr. Beckett, and Mary Franks, motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Correctional Health Services, Inc.;
[19] 6. Defendants', Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dr. Pettis, Dr. Beckett, and Mary Franks, motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Pettis;
[20] 7. Defendants', Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dr. Pettis, Dr. Beckett, and Mary Franks, motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Beckett;
[21] 8. Defendants', Correctional Health Services, Inc., Dr. Pettis, Dr. Beckett, and Mary Franks, motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 against defendant Franks;
[22] 9. The summary judgment motion of all defendants is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff's § 1983 claims based upon the October 7, 1997 assault;
[23] 10. Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief in his Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
[24] 11. Remaining in this case are plaintiff's claim under § 1983 against defendants Beckett, Shagren and Franks.