In 2018, former pretrial detainee Quintin Scott joined a lawsuit alleging unconstitutional dental care at the Cook County Jail in Chicago because it failed to employ an oral surgeon. For over a decade since 2007, detainees with serious dental issues had been referred to the surgery clinic at a local hospital, but Scott’s suit claimed that this resulted in “unnecessary pain and significant delays in receiving treatment” for jail detainees and prisoners. Some had to wait months for dental care, Plaintiffs said, and county officials were aware of that problem.

While he was held at the jail, Scott needed surgery to remove wisdom teeth. But it took seven months before that happened, a delay resulting in “unbearable” pain, he said. Scott submitted copies of grievances from 11 other prisoners whose dental care had been delayed and moved for class certification in the suit. The district court denied the motion, finding Scott had not met the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. He then settled his individual claim for $7,500 but reserved the right to appeal.

On April 29, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the lower court’s ruling. As an initial matter it held that Scott still retained standing even though he had settled his own claim because, as a class representative, he was eligible for an incentive award if the lawsuit was successful. “[W]e already have concluded that the prospect of an incentive award is enough to support the named plaintiffs concrete interest in the litigation,” the appellate Court wrote.

Relying on Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) caselaw from the 1880s, Defendant officials at the jail, run by County Sheriff Tom Dart, contended that incentive awards in class-action cases are “per se unlawful.” The Court of Appeals rejected that argument, noting that such awards are almost ubiquitous and “there is a long-standing practice of awarding incentive fees to named plaintiffs in class actions.”

Turning to denial of class certification, the Court found that Scott had met the requirements of Rule 23. In regard to commonality, the claims of individual plaintiffs were all related to “the same course of conduct by the same defendant: the County’s decade-long refusal to have an oral surgeon on staff at the Jail.” Due to that, all class members “suffered the same alleged injury: unreasonable delays in receiving treatment for their acknowledged serious dental conditions.”

The Seventh Circuit held that the district court erred by misapplying McFields v. Dart, 982 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2020)—another class-action involving dental care at the Cook County Jail. In analyzing McFields, the lower court examined class members’ individualized factors “such as the type of dental issue, degree of pain, and how long each detainee waited before receiving treatment.” That was improper, since the jail’s failure to have an oral surgeon was “a uniform policy that applies to every detainee.” In short, just because the dental care provided to detainees was individualized, class certification was not precluded.

Scott also met Rule 23 requirements of typicality, predominance and superiority, though numerosity and adequacy of representation were not raised in the appeal and thus not considered. One Circuit Judge issued a dissenting opinion and would have affirmed denial of class certification, but the majority of the Seventh Circuit panel remanded the case for further proceedings—a decision that the Court refused to reconsider on July 23, 2024, when the full Seventh Circuit also declined to rehear the case en banc. See: Scott v. Dart, 99 F.4th 1076 (7th Cir. 2024); and108 F.4th 931 (7th Cir. 2024).

Defendants petitioned SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari to hear their appeal to the decision in October 2024, asking the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois to stay the case in the meantime. That request was denied on December 4, 2024, so the case is proceeding, and PLN will update developments as they are available. Scott is represented by Chicago attorneys Kenneth N. Flaxman and Joel A. Flaxman. See: Scott v. Dart, USDC (N.D. Ill.), Case No. 1:17-cv-07135; and Dart v. Scott, U.S., Case No. 24-464.  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login