Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-7098IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Plaintiff, )7-7,99V V. No. Civil Action Equity DANIEL LUCAS, Defendant NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. County Administrator Richard Moore, Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 717-240-6150 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Plaintiff, V. DANIEL LUCAS, Defendant. COMPLAINT No. Civil Action Equity AND NOW, the Plaintiff, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, by and through its undersigned counsel, avers the following in support of this Complaint: 1. Plaintiff is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections. 2. Plaintiff is an Administrative Department of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania responsible for administering the state correctional system, including the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill ("SCI-Camp Hill"). 3. Defendant Daniel Lucas is a fifty-eight (58) year-old inmate who is presently housed in the Infirmary at SCI-Camp Hill. 4. Mr. Lucas has been under the care of Dr. Barry Beavin, M.D. at SCI-Camp Hill since his incarceration at SCI-Camp Hill in August 2007. See Unsworn Affidavit of Dr. Barry Beavin attached hereto. 5. On November 23, 2007, Mr. Lucas began refusing medical treatment for his chronic condition. 6. Mr. Lucas is on prescribed medication to control his chronic condition of coronary artery disease with previous heart attack, high blood pressure, positive TB test and depression. 7. On November 24, 2007, Mr. Lucas was admitted to the Holy Spirit Hospital, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania for refusal of medication which could worsen his existing chronic condition. 8. On November 25, 2007, Mr. Lucas was discharged from Holy Spirit Hospital and returned to SCI-Camp Hill. 9. Later that morning he was brought to SCI-Camp Hill's Infirmary to be housed in an observation cell because he was found to be unresponsive. 10. On November 25, 2007, Mr. Lucas allowed the Medical staff at SCI-Camp Hill to take his vital signs and an EKG was done and he was given medication to stabilize his condition. 11. On November 26, 2007, Mr. Lucas again began to refuse his medication. Mr. Lucas's refusal to consistently take his medication places him at great risk of stroke, heart attack, and death. 12. It is the opinion of Dr. Beavin that should Mr. Lucas become non-compliant with medical staff again, he will be in imminent danger of the loss of life or other irreparable harm unless medical treatment can be administered if and when Mr. Lucas refuses his daily medication. 13. It is impossible to predict the exact point at which Mr. Lucas's condition may result in immediate, severe, and irreparable harm, although it is likely that such harm will result within hours of Mr. Lucas's refusal of his necessary daily medication; therefore, immediate intervention would be necessary. 14. Mr. Lucas's periodic and continued refusal of his necessary daily medication could result in death. His death will cause a significant disruption to the orderly administration of SCI-Camp Hill. The effects of his death would demoralize staff and instill the belief in the inmate population that the prison administration caused and permitted Mr. Lucas's death. This will lead to animosity toward the staff and undermine confidence in prison authority. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, requests this Court to enter an Order: (a) authorizing the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs designee to involuntarily examine Defendant and administer involuntary medical treatment to him, including performing invasive diagnostic tests, providing medication, and supplying nutrition and hydration intravenously or otherwise necessary to preserve Daniel Lucas's health and life, including, but not limited to, the administration of daily medication, intravenous fluids, oral feedings and necessary laboratory studies; and (b) providing such other relief as this Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, Office of General Counsel BY: Michae J. McGovern Assistant Counsel Attorney Id. No 52802 Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Date: November 27, 2007 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Plaintiff, V. No. Defendant. Civil Action Equity DANIEL LUCAS, VERIFICATION I, Teresa Law, Corrections Health Care Administrator, am the duly appointed Corrections Health Care Administrator at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill and am authorized to make this verification. I have reviewed the attached Complaint with respect to the involuntary medical treatment of Daniel Lucas. I hereby verify that the allegations contained in the attached Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I make this verification subject to the penalties under 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: November 27, 2007 y Teresa L w Corrections Health Care Administrator State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill .74 b C> n ~l 0 -V V G '' ti"1 r? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Plaintiff, Q 7- 7,0 9a v. : No. Civil Action Equity DANIEL LUCAS, Defendant. PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Complaint was served on the person and in the manner indicated below: Personal service by hand-delivery: Daniel Lucas, HE-2775 SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisburn Road, PO Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837 Teresa Law Corrections Health Care Administrator State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill Dated: November 27, 2007 t? WO = q 4 fem r. ?? . fi ' t a; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Plaintiff, : 7 _ 70 c b v. No. Civil Action Equity DANIEL LUCAS, Defendant. APPLICATION FOR EX PARTS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1531, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, petitions this Honorable Court to issue an Ex Parte Order granting the concurrently filed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction pending a Hearing because of the following: 1. Plaintiffs Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction in this matter are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 2. Defendant will suffer irreparable harm, possibly resulting in death, if the relief sought is not immediately granted. 3. Immediate relief, as requested, is necessary to sustain the life and health of the Defendant pending the adjudication of this matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to ex parte order a Preliminary Injunction permitting Plaintiff or Plaintiffs designee to involuntarily examine Defendant and administer involuntary medical treatment to him, including performing invasive diagnostic tests, providing medication, and supplying nutrition and hydration intravenously or otherwise administer ongoing involuntary medical and psychiatric treatment, including, but not limited to, prescribed medication, intravenous fluids, oral feedings, psychiatric medication, and obtaining necessary laboratory studies, as, in Plaintiff's opinion, are necessary to sustain Defendant's life pending the adjudication of this matter. Respectfully submitted, Office of General Counsel BY: Micha. McGovern Assist Counsel Attorney Id. No 52802 Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Date: November 27, 2007 580 A.2d 887 59 USLW 2193 (Cite as: 134 Pa.Cmwlth. 415, 580 A.2d 887) P Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, FARVIEW STATE HOSPITAL, Petitioner, V. Joseph KALLINGER, Respondent. Heard July 18, 1990. Decided Aug. 14, 1990. Publication Ordered Sept. 10, 1990. The Department of Public Welfare and a state hospital filed a request for special emergency relief seeking authorization for involuntary administration of necessary nutrition and medical treatment to a prisoner who wanted to starve himself to death. The Commonwealth Court, No. 239 Misc.Dkt. 1990, Pellegrini, J., held that the interest of the Commonwealth in the orderly administration of its prison system, together with the need to preserve the integrity of the psychiatrists working within.the penal system, outweighed any diminished right to privacy held by the prisoner, and, thus, the hospital had the right and the duty to force feed the prisoner. Ordered accordingly. West Headnotes M Constitutional Law X82(13) 92k82 13 Most Cited Cases L11 Prisons X17(2) 310k17 2 Most Cited Cases Interests of the Commonwealth in prison security and discipline outweighed any right of privacy held by prisoner who wished to starve himself to death, and, thus, Commonwealth had right to force feed prisoner. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Page 1 whenever prison officials, in exercise of informed discretion, reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of prison disruption or other interference with legitimate penological objectives of prison environment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. IL Prisons X17(2) 310k17(2) Most Cited Cases Commonwealth has obligation to provide for health and safety of inmates in its custody and has duty to provide appropriate medical treatment to reduce any danger that inmate suffering from serious mental disorder represents to himself or others. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Ig Suicide C;?'3 3680 Most Cited Cases Allowing prisoner to starve himself to death would force Commonwealth to stand by and watch him die while it had custody and control over prisoner which would amount to aiding and abetting in prisoner's suicide which violated Pennsylvania public policy. 18 Pa.C.S.A. & & 508(d)(1), 2505. L51 Prisons G;?17(2) 310kl7(2) Most Cited Cases The Commonwealth's need to preserve integrity of psychiatric personnel working within penal system clearly outweighed any diminished right to privacy held by prisoner, and, thus, Commonwealth had authority and obligation to force feed prisoner who was attempting to starve himself to death. **888 *416 Thomas Blazusiak, with him, Howard Ulan, Asst. Counsel, and John A. Kane, Chief Counsel, for petitioner. Jeffrey J. Wander, Honesdale, for respondent. David Ferlecer, Philadelphia, Guardian Ad Litem, for Joseph Kallinger. PELLEGRINI, Judge. u Prisons X13(1) 310k13 1 Most Cited Cases The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, (Department), Farview State Individual freedoms of prisoners may be curtailed Hospital (Farview), files this Request for Special Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 580 A.2d 887 59 USLW 2193 (Cite as: 134 Pa.Cmwlth. 415, 580 A.2d 887) Emergency Relief asking this Court for a Declaratory Judgment authorizing the involuntary administration of necessary nutrition and medical *417 treatment in order to preserve the safety, health and life of Joseph Kallinger (Kallinger). We are called upon to decide a sensitive matter which is without precedent in this Commonwealth. Joseph Kallinger wants to starve himself to death. [FNS The Department, who has custody, wants to force him to involuntarily receive food through a nasogastric tube and other medical treatment. We must decide if the Department has such right. FN1. Kallinger, a convicted murderer, is currently serving two consecutive life sentences consecutively with a thirty to eighty year sentence in Pennsylvania. He also must serve a life sentence and a forty- two to fifty-two year sentence in New Jersey. He also must serve other sentences which are too numerous to mention. Needless to say, Joseph Kallinger will spend the rest of his natural life behind bars. The current dilemma developed after Kallinger was recently readmitted to Farview on May 17, 1990, from the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon (Huntingdon). FN2 On June 22, 1990, he stated, as a result of his vision of Christ in a toilet bowl telling him to join him, that he would refuse to eat or drink, and that he desires to "meet his maker." He has also refused treatment for an abscess on his foot. On June 30, 1990, Kallinger agreed to be transferred to Wayne Memorial Hospital in Wayne County, Pennsylvania, in order to have intravenous fluids, including antibiotics, administered to him. However, he continued in his refusal to accept nutrition and other medical treatment. FN2. Kallinger began serving his Pennsylvania sentences at Huntingdon following his convictions in 1976. However, in 1977, he was committed to Farview where he stayed for over ten years, until 1988. Since 1988, he was recommitted once for a short period of time and then returned to Huntingdon. This recent recommittment was his second since returning to Huntingdon. His current recommittment is scheduled to expire on August 17, 1990. Page 2 On July 3, 1990, the Department filed an action for Declaratory Relief in the Court **889 of Common Pleas of Wayne County, seeking authority to provide necessary treatment, nutrition and hydration to Kallinger. On that day, the trial court entered a preliminary order permitting the Department to do so. However, on July 10, 1990, after holding a hearing on the matter, the trial court dissolved its preliminary order and determined that Kallinger was competent *418 and could reject nutrition and hydration necessary to preserve his health, safety and life. The Department filed a Petition For Review seeking Special Emergency Relief pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court, and seeking review of the trial court's Order pursuant to our appellate jurisdiction. Sections 761 and 762 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S.? 761, 762. fFN31 FN3. By order dated July 13, 1990, this Court directed that the Petition For Review shall be regarded as a Complaint In Equity directed to our original jurisdiction, and that the appeal from the trial court's Order shall be dismissed without prejudice. On July 13, 1990, this Court granted the Department's request for a preliminary injunction, ordering that Kallinger may be involuntarily administered medical treatment, nutrition and hydration, pending further adjudication. On July 18, 1990, following a hearing, a second Order was issued continuing the involuntary medication and feeding of Kallinger pending final adjudication of this matter. The Department offered testimony and evidence that if Kallinger is allowed to starve to death, this would have major negative repercussions on the prison and mental health systems; that Kallinger's death would have adverse effects on other patients, their families and the staff of the mental hospital; and other patients may also "copy-cat" Kallinger's actions. Kallinger contends that despite such adverse repercussions to the Commonwealth, he should be allowed to die if he so chooses. He argues that his right to privacy overrides any interests of the Commonwealth because the use of a nasogastric tube to feed him is an overly intrusive procedure which could last a number of years. Copr. 0 West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 580 A.2d 887 59 USLW 2193 (Cite as: 134 Pa.Cmwlth. 415, 580 A.2d 887) We note at the outset that Kallinger is committed to Farview, a mental hospital for the criminally insane. He suffers from a serious mental illness, diagnosed by Mokarram Jafri, M.D., as a Borderline Personality Disorder. (Notes of Testimony (N.T.), July 10, 1990, p. 35; July 18, 1990, pp. 27-29). However, he is competent in the sense that he fully understands his decision and realizes that *419 death will result if he continues to refuse nutrition and medical treatment. (N.T. July 10, 1990, pp. 36, 70-71). We also recognize that Kallinger, through this action, may be attempting to manipulate the system in order to stay at Farview rather than return to Huntingdon. His authorization of his attorneys to enter appearances on his behalf--one to say that he has the right to die, the other to say the state had an obligation to make him stay alive--is certainly part of that manipulation. Although Kallinger has in the past and is now manipulating the system in which he finds himself, if the Department is not allowed to involuntarily provide him with nutrition and medical care, we assume that Kallinger will indeed starve himself to death. While Kallinger is sufficiently competent to make a decision to starve himself to death, this is not a "right to die" case in the usual sense. There has been much public debate and court activity over whether such a right exists and in what circumstances it exists, and these cases involve decisions made by enfranchised citizens or someone acting on their behalf, that their substantial rights of privacy allows them to make that decision. See e.g., Cruzan v. Director. Missouri Devartment of Health 497 U.S. 261 110 S Ct 2841 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990). Kallinger is a convict and any rights that he may have are extremely limited and severely restricted because of the unique nature and requirements of prison custody. Bell v. Wolfish. 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L Ed 2d 447 (1979); Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union 433 U.S. 119. 97 S.Ct. 2532, 53 L Ed 2d 629 (1977); **890Price v. Johnston. 334 U.S. 266, 68 S Ct 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948). What this case concerns is whether the Commonwealth's interest in an orderly administration of the prison system is paramount over any residual right of privacy that Kallinger has which would make it an invasion of privacy on the part of the Commonwealth to force feed him. The narrow issue then presented to us is whether the Commonwealth has a right to force a competent prisoner within the Commonwealth's penal system to receive involuntary *420 medical treatment and Page 3 nutrition and hydration through a nasogastric feeding tube. To decide this issue, a balancing test is employed, balancing the Commonwealth's interests against the prisoner's remaining right to privacy. Matthews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319, 96 S Ct 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). Kallinger argues that his right to privacy is superior to the interests of the Commonwealth, no matter what effect it may have on the prison system. He argues that as a prisoner, he did not give up his right to starve himself, citing the Supreme Court of Georgia decision in Zant v. Prevatte. 248 Ga 832, 286 S.E.2d 715 1982. In that case, the Georgia court held that a competent prisoner had a right to starve himself to death. The court, in ruling that the state does not have the right to force medical treatment and food on a competent prisoner, stated: A prisoner does not relinquish his constitutional right to privacy because of his status as a prisoner. The state has no power to monitor this man's physical condition against his will; neither does it have the right to feed him to prevent his death from starvation if that is his wish.... The state can incarcerate one who has violated the law and, in certain circumstances, even take his life. But it has no right to destroy a person's will by frustrating his attempt to die if necessary to make a point. Zant. 248 Ga. at 833-834 286 S E 2d at 716-717 Kallinger further argues that the procedure for forcing nutrition and hydration into him is overly intrusive. The procedure which the Department has been and wishes to continue using is a nasogastric tube which is inserted through the nose into the stomach. This tube will remain in his body and will have to be frequently removed and replaced. Kallinger correctly points out that there are several risks involved in this procedure, including internal bleeding and possibly even death. (N.T. July 10, 1990, pp. 42-43, 56-57; July 18, 1990, p. 23). *421 L U While admitting that there are risks to Kallinger as a result of his forced feeding, the Commonwealth argues that its interest in prison security and discipline, the morale of medical and custodial staff, as well as the law of this Commonwealth, far outweigh any right of privacy that Kallinger may have. We agree. The Commonwealth has an overwhelming interest in maintaining prison security, order and discipline. Copr. 0 West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 580 A.2d 887 59 USLW 2193 (Cite as: 134 Pa.Cmwlth. 415, 580 A.2d 887) The Supreme Court has stated that "maintaining institutional security and preserving internal order and discipline are essential goals that may require limitation or retraction of the detained constitutional rights of... convicted prisoners." Bell v. Wolfish. 441 U.S. at 546. 99 S.Ct. at 1878. This lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy deprives the convicts of Fourth Amendment rights in their prison cells. Hudson v. Palmer. 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). r 2l Prison officials are given a wide range of discretion in the promulgation and enforcement of rules to govern the prison community in order to maintain security, order and discipline. Bell v. Wolfish: Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817. 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974). U.S. ex rel. Silverman v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 527 F.Supp 742 (W.D.Pa. 198 1), affd Appeal of Silverman. 707 F.2d 1395 (3rd Cir.1983). Individual freedoms may be curtailed whenever prison officials, in exercise of their informed discretion, reasonably conclude that their exercise possesses the likelihood of disrupting prison order or stability or otherwise interfering **891 with the legitimate penological objectives of the prison environment. St. Clair v. Cuyler. 634 F.2d 109 Ord Cir.1980), rehearing denied 643 F.2d 103 Ord Cir.1980); See also Bell v. Wolfish,- Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners Union: Wilson v. Prase. 325 F.Supp. 9 (W.D.Pa.1971), affd 463 F.2d 109 Ord Cir.1972). Other jurisdictions confronted with the same situation have held that compelled nutrition and medical treatment is proper because of the strong state interest in orderly prison *422 administration outweighs any convict's residual rights. In Von Holden v. Chapman. 87 A.D.2d 66, 450 N Y S 2d 623 (1982), Mark David Chapman, serving a twenty year to life term for the murder of former Beatle John Lennon, attempted to starve himself to death while in a mental institution. The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, in allowing involuntary feeding through a nasogastric tube, found that the legitimate interest in prison security and administration clearly included the right to prevent a prisoner's suicide. In Commissioner of Correction v Mvers 379 Mass 255, 399 N.E.2d 452 (1979), the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowed forced hemadialysis to a prisoner suffering a kidney condition on the basis of maintaining prison order. The court stated that imprisonment imposed severe limitations on the prisoner's right to privacy and bodily integrity. Page 4 In the present case, the uncontradicted testimony shows that if Kallinger would be permitted to die, other patients at Farview would almost certainly copy the same tactic, manipulating the system to get a change of conditions, possibly resulting in their death. (N.T. July 10, 1990, pp. 13-14, 25-26, 49; July 18, 1990, pp. 16-17, 31). Allowing a prisoner to die will cause other patients to become angry and lose faith in the system and make treatment more difficult; it may even spawn rioting at Farview or from prisoners at Huntingdon or other state institutions. (N.T. July 10, 1990, pp. 13-14, 20, 26; July 18, 1990, pp. 17-20, 36). It is clear that allowing a prisoner to starve to death while in state custody would have an unpredictable negative effect on the security and order within the prison system. M Besides preserving order with the prison system, the Commonwealth has a strong interest in maintaining the health of prisoners in its custody. The obligation of the Commonwealth to provide for the health and safety of the inmates in their custody is derived from two very important interests: the preservation of human life and the prevention of suicide. The preservation of human life is of great interest to the state. *423John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital v. Heston. 58 N.J. 576, 279 A .2d 670 1971. In Commonwealth v. Root 191 Pa Super 238, 244, 156 A.2d 895, 900 (1959), revd. on other grds. 403 Pa. 571, 170 A.2d 310 (1961), the Pennsylvania Superior Court stated that "[t]he policy of the law is to protect human life, even the life of a person who wishes to destroy his own." The Commonwealth has a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect the health and welfare of those persons in its custody, Youngberg v. Romeo. 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble. 429 U.S. 97. 103-97 S Ct 285, 290, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), and may be cast in civil damages for its failure to observe such duty, Simmons v. City of Philadelphia. 728 F Supn 352 (E.D.Pa.1990). Lee v. Downs. 641 F.2d 1117 (4th Cir.1981). Furthermore, the Commonwealth has a duty to "provid[e] appropriate medical treatment to reduce the danger that an inmate suffering from a serious mental disorder represents to himself or others." Washington v. Harper. 494 U.S. 210, ---- 110 S.Ct. 1028. 1030. 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990). The United States Supreme Court in Washington v. H rper allowed the forced administration of antipsychotic drugs to a prisoner on the basis that the Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 580 A.2d 887 59 USLW 2193 (Cite as: 134 Pa.Cmwlth. 415, 580 A.2d 887) state's interest in providing appropriate medical treatment outweighed the inmate's liberty interest. The Supreme Court found that the state has not only an interest, but an "obligation to provide prisoners with medical treatment consistent not only with their own medical interests, but also with the **892 needs of the institution." Washington v. Harper. 494 U.S. at 110 S.Ct. at 1039. Other courts have also considered the state's interest in the preservation of human life. In State ex. rel. White v. Narick. 170 W.Va. 195, 292 S.E.2d 54 1( 982), the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals allowed the force feeding of an inmate who had begun a hunger strike to protest conditions of his prison. The court found that "[a] state must preserve human life, a concern at the very core of civilization.... West Virginia's interest in preserving life is superior to [the prisoner's] personal privacy (severely *424 modified by his incarceration)." Narick, --- W.Va. at ----, 292 A.2d at 58. See also Commissioner of Correction v. Myers (forced hemadialysis treatment on prisoner suffering kidney condition based on preservation of life and maintaining prison order); Superintendent o Belchertown -State School v. Saikewicz. 373 Mass 728, 370 N.E.2d 417 (1977). The Court in Narick criticized the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Zant by stating: The Georgia court failed to consider compelling reasons for preserving life, not the least being civility. What sense does it make for a state to allow a prisoner to kill himself, urging as its justification his right-of-privacy right to refuse medical treatment for his voluntary debilitation; and yet preserve unto itself the right to kill him, the ultimate violation of his privacy right. We doubt that Georgia would allow him to raise his right of privacy against being put to death, as a defense against the death penalty! Narick. 170 W.Va. at ----, 292 S.E.2d at 57 The second related state interest is the Commonwealth's duty to prevent suicide. "American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide--including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life." Cruzan v. Director. Missouri Department of Health 497 U.S. at ---- 110 S.Ct. at 2859. 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990,). (Scalia, J. concurring). 141 Pennsylvania public policy strongly opposes the Page 5 commission of suicide. Commonwealth v. Root. Pennsylvania law makes it a crime to aid or solicit another person to commit suicide. Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. & 2505. A police officer also has the right to use force to prevent a suicide from occurring. 18 Pa.C.S. § 508(4)(1). By asking the Commonwealth to stand by and watch him die while it has custody and control over him, Kallinger is asking it to aid and abet his suicide. *425 The leading case in support of a state's duty to prevent suicide is Von Holden v. Chapman. The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, in rejecting Chapman's right to privacy claim, held that "it is self-evident that the right of privacy does not include the right to commit suicide.... To characterize a person's self-destructive acts as entitled to Constitutional protection would be ludicrous." Von Holden v. Chapman. 87 A.D.2d at 67, 450 N.Y.S.2d at 625. Since Kallinger is a patient at Farview, the Commonwealth's interest in maintaining the integrity of the medical and psychiatric professions is also of great importance. Several courts have held that the integrity of the medical profession is an interest which should be balanced against a person's privacy right to refuse medical treatment or nutrition. Cruzan: Narick, Saikewicz. If Kallinger is allowed to starve himself to death, repercussions would be felt throughout the medical and psychiatric professions. (N.T. July 10, 1990, pp. 19-20, 24-25, 40; July 18, 1990, pp. 16-17). Dr. Jafri, Chief of Psychiatric Services at Farview, stated that Kallinger's death would "have a negative impact upon the staff [in] that we could not carry out a moral and ethical obligation of keeping a patient alive." (N.T. July 10, 1990, p. 41). Jack Wolford, M.D., Psychiatric Director for the Department, testified that "it would be devastating to the staff and the staff morale if they had to allow someone to cease living, virtually by their own hand, while under our care." (N.T. July 18, 1990, p. 10). **893 Furthermore, if he is allowed to die, other patients and their families would have serious doubts about whether the psychiatric staff is providing their patients with proper psychiatric treatment and medical care. (N.T. July 18, 1990, pp. 26-27, 40; July 18, 1990, pp. 19, 36). Dr. Jafri testified that his death "will not encourage the confidence of their patients in our ability to manage and take care their needs, as [well as] the moral confidence of the public." (N.T. July 10, 1990, p. 41). Dr. Wolford Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 580 A.2d 887 59 USLW 2193 (Cite as: 134 Pa.Cmwith. 415, 580 A.2d 887) stated that the patients *426 "would lose trust in the system of care." (N.T. July 18, 1990, p. 17). M The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has an overwhelming interest in the orderly administration of its prison system. The Commonwealth must maintain prison security, order and discipline. It must also fulfill its duty to provide proper medical care to the inmates, thus preserving life and preventing suicide. These vital interests, along with the need to preserve the integrity of the physicians and psychiatrists working within the penal system, clearly outweigh any diminished right to privacy held by Kallinger. Accordingly, we order that Farview can and must continue to provide appropriate nutrition through a nasogastric tube and appropriate medical care to Joseph Kallinger so long as he continues to refuse nutrition and medical treatment. Kallinger shall remain committed to Farview until such time as the medical and psychiatric staff feel it's appropriate for him to return to a State Correctional Institution. ORDER No. 239 Misc. Dkt. 1990 AND NOW, this 14th day of August, 1990, it is ordered that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, Farview State Hospital, must provide appropriate nutrition through a nasogastric tube and appropriate medical care to Joseph Kallinger as long as he continues to refuse either. Joseph Kallinger's commitment to Farview State Hospital is extended indefinitely until such time that the medical and psychiatric staff determines that such feeding can be carried out at an appropriate State Correctional Institution. ORDER AND NOW, this 10th day of September, 1990, it is ordered that the opinion filed August 14, 1990 shall be *427 designated OPINION rather than MEMORANDUM OPINION and that it shall be reported. 580 A.2d 887, 134 Pa.Cmwlth. 415, 59 USLW 2193 END OF DOCUMENT Page 6 Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Eady v. Sawyer, 2005 U.S. Dist LEXIS 20118, * (Copy In this case, the Court finds that HartIW tight handcuffs is just such a de minimis use of force that does not implicate the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim against Kieffer and Gordon regarding use of handcuffs is dismissed from this action with prejudice. 0 (Z7 c.? DZI IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Plaintiff, V. : No. Civil Action Equity DANIEL LUCAS, Defendant. UNSWORN AFFIDAVIT I, Barry Beaven, M.D., state the following: I. I am a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2. I am currently Assistant Medical Director at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill ("SCI-Camp Hill"). 3. I am familiar with Daniel Lucas, an inmate who has been under my care since his incarceration at SCI-Camp Hill in August 2007. 4. Defendant Daniel Lucas, is a fifty-eight (58) year-old inmate who is presently housed in the infirmary in an observation cell at SCI-Camp Hill. 5. On November 23, 2007, Mr. Lucas began refusing medical treatment for his chronic condition. 6. Mr. Lucas is on prescribed medication to control his chronic condition of coronary artery disease with previous heart attack, high blood pressure, positive TB test and depression. 7. On November 24, 2007, Mr. Lucas was admitted to the Holy Spirit Hospital, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania for refusal of medication which could worsen his existing chronic condition. 8. On November 25, 2007, Mr. Lucas was discharged from Holy Spirit Hospital and returned to SCI-Camp Hill. 9. Later that morning he was brought to SCI-Camp Hill's Infirmary to be housed in an observation cell because he was found to be unresponsive. 10. Mr. Lucas allowed the Medical staff at SCI-Camp Hill to take his vital signs and an EKG was done and he was given medication to stabilize his condition. 11. On November 26, 2007, Mr. Lucas again began refusing his medication. 12. Mr. Lucas's refusal to consistently take his medication places him at great risk of stroke, heart attack, and death. I understand that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: November 27, 2007 ? Barry Beaven, M.D. State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill C'j J M.L.. •rt_ ??'?'??q`? P" • Sf .} ?L?3 ? X5.12 e l ' - j,r s ' " " Q N ? 2' 72007 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, V. DANIEL LUCAS, Plaintiff, No. Defendant. ORDER AND NOW this oZ 7 Aday of t 07-709 il" Civil Action Equity 20075 the Superiintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill is hereby directed to transport Daniel Lucas to Courtroom No. 3 in Cumberland County, Carlisle, PA, on A)WOWV d 8l , 2007 for a hearing scheduled at /• " I d Mand return him forthwith to the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. .T. NIP Ks d J 1 lv'I VAIJ{, FtiI Al, ? d L Z A GN I OOZ ;Nat ja NOV Q 72DD7 W" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, v. DANIEL LUCAS, Plaintiff, Defendant. 07• "709f No. Civil Action Equity ORDER AND NOW this ;k7 t*day of "J'??eyw? 2007, upon Plaintiffs Application for Ex Parte Preliminary Injunction and based upon the Affidavit of Barry Beaven, M.D., treating physician, it appears that immediate relief is necessary to preserve the life of the Defendant pending the adjudication of this matter. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that: 1. Pending the adjudication of this matter, Plaintiff or Plaintiffs designee may involuntarily examine Defendant and perform invasive diagnostic tests on Defendant as needed, and administer ongoing involuntary medical treatment including performing invasive diagnostic tests, providing medication, and supplying nutrition and hydration intravenously or otherwise administer ongoing involuntary medical and psychiatric treatment, including, but not limited to, prescribed medication, intravenous fluids, oral feedings, and obtaining necessary laboratory studies, medical and psychiatric treatment, as in Plaintiff's opinion, may be necessary to preserve the health, safety, and life of Defendant. 2. A Hearing before this Court on this matter shall be e ? Ile 4w 6 BY WE COUR' I v a c? v d 1 SON { IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Plaintiff VS. DANIEL LUCAS, Defendant o?- 9098 No. Civil - Equity ORDER AND NOW, this of ay of November, 2007, following a hearing and in light of the facts found and conclusions arrived at by the Court, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Plaintiff or Plaintiff's designee, wherever located, may involuntarily examine Defendant and administer involuntary medical treatment to him, including performing invasive diagnostic tests, providing medication, and supply nutrition and hydration intravenously or otherwise, as may be deemed necessary by Plaintiff's medical staff, to preserve Defendant's health and life should Defendant refuse such treatment, nutrition and hydration. &0%,& j' • ,`, 11" .mi'''`l tZ " BY E_t.QJJRT: nv;? J. M1114 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Plaintiff V. DANIEL LUCAS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION EQUITY NO. 07-7098 EQUITY TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2007, hearing in this matter is continued to 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 29, 2007. If the Defendant is not present, our Order dated November 27, 2007, shall be vacated. Edward E. Guido, j. obert B. MacIntyre, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Cam Hill, PA 17011 aniel Lucas, HE-2775 SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisburn Road P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837 srs jk IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Plaintiff, : No. 07-7098 V. : DANIEL LUCAS. : Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW ITS COMPLAINT IN EQUITY AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and moves the court to dismiss its Complaint in Equity seeking authority to administer ongoing involuntary medical treatment to Defendant Daniel Lucas, and in support thereof avers: 1. On November 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Complaint requesting the court issue an order authorizing Plaintiff to administer involuntary medical treatment to Defendant. 2. Plaintiff's complaint was filed as a result of Defendant's refusal to take medication which had been prescribed to him for chronic coronary artery disease and high blood pressure. 3. The court issued an ex parte injunction authorizing Plaintiff to administer medical treatment to Defendant and scheduling a hearing to allow Defendant the opportunity to respond to Plaintiff s assertions. 4. On November 29, 2007, after a hearing at which Plaintiff introduced the testimony of Barry Beaven, MD, Defendant's treating physician, the court issued an order continuing the preliminary injunction and directing that an attorney be appointed to represent Defendant in this matter. 5. Defendant was then returned to the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, where he began voluntarily eating and taking his prescribed medication. 6. Plaintiff now believes it is in Defendant's and Plaintiff's best interests to transfer Defendant to the State Correctional Institution at Somerset, Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and intends to do so at its earliest opportunity. 7. If, after his transfer, Defendant again refuses to voluntarily take his prescribed medication, Plaintiff will seek the intervention of the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves the court to grant this motion and to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Respectfully Submitted r7 ;! ?qc By: Michae J cGovern Assistant Counsel Attorney ID No.: PA52802 Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone No.: (717) 731-0444 Fax No.: (717) 975-2217 Email: mmcgovern(a,state. a.us Date: December 12, 2007 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Plaintiff, No. 07-7098 V. DANIEL LUCAS. Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day forwarding a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw its Complaint in Equity upon the person(s) in the manner indicated below. Service by Hand Delivery Addressed as follows: Daniel Lucas, HE-2775 SCI-Camp Hill PO Box 200 2500 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, PA 17001 L"'. - ',? IYL, ?" Heidi K. Miller Paralegal Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Governor's Office of General Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Date: December 12, 2007 t7 "' r ... Fri IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Plaintiff, No. 07-7098 V. DANIEL LUCAS. Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO WITHDRAW ITS COMPLAINT IN EQUITY AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and moves the court to dismiss its Complaint in Equity seeking authority to administer ongoing involuntary medical treatment to Defendant Daniel Lucas, and in support thereof avers: I. On November 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Complaint requesting the court issue an order authorizing Plaintiff to administer involuntary medical treatment to Defendant. 2. Plaintiff's complaint was filed as a result of Defendant's refusal to take medication which had been prescribed to him for chronic coronary artery disease and high blood pressure. 3. The Honorable Edward E. Guido issued an ex parte injunction authorizing Plaintiff to administer medical treatment to Defendant and scheduling a hearing to allow Defendant the opportunity to respond to Plaintiff's assertions. 4. On November 29, 2007, after a hearing at which Plaintiff introduced the testimony of Barry Beaven, MD, Defendant's treating physician, the Honorable Edward E. Guido issued an order continuing the preliminary injunction and directing that an attorney be appointed to represent Defendant in this matter. 5. Defendant was then returned to the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, where he began voluntarily eating and taking his prescribed medication. 6. Plaintiff now believes it is in Defendant's and Plaintiff's best interests to transfer Defendant to the State Correctional Institution at Somerset, Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and intends to do so at its earliest opportunity. 7. If, after his transfer, Defendant again refuses to voluntarily take his prescribed medication, Plaintiff will seek the intervention of the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas. 8. Counsel for Plaintiff has attempted to meet with Defendant to seek Defendant's concurrence on this motion and Defendant has refused to meet with counsel. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves the court to grant this motion and to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Respectfully Submitted r Michae J McGovern Assist Counsel Attorney ID No.: PA52802 Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections 5 5 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone No.: (717) 731-0444 Fax No.: (717) 975-2217 Email: mmcgovern@state,pa.us vern@state.pa.us Date: December 17, 2007 I, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Plaintiff, V. DANIEL LUCAS. Defendant. No. 07-7098 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day forwarding a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw its Complaint in Equity upon the person(s) in the manner indicated below. Service by U.S. Mail Addressed as follows: Daniel Lucas, HE-2775 SCI-Somerset 1590 Walters Mill Road Somerset, PA 15510 Renee J. berts Legal Assistant I Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Governor's Office of General Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Date: December 17, 2007 d ZEE n?4 DEC, l a 2007 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Plaintiff, No. 07-7098 V. DANIEL LUCAS. Defendant. ORDER AND NOW, this loqfA day of 7, Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw its Complaint in Equity seeking an injunction authorizing it to provide involuntary medical treatment to Defendant is granted and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. J. N'A 61:0 [I 0 I M"Ir 80,9Z r1bNIO!'I+! {it ±_U; "dt 3 LL ,0 RE: Failure to Comply with Cumberland County Local Rule 208 Page 1 of 1 Calvanelli, Melissa From: Calvanelli, Melissa Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:05 AM To: 'Michael J. McGovern (mmcgovern@state.pa.us)' Subject: Notice of Failure to Comply with Local Rule - AMENDMENT REQUIRED Importance: High RE: Failure to Comply with Cumberland County Local Rule 208.3(a) Motion to Withdraw Complaint in Equity 07-7098 - Dept of Corrections v. Lucas Dear Mr. McGovern, Please note that due to your failure to comply with Cumberland County Local Rule 208.3 (a)(2) and/or Rule 208.3(a)(9), your motion will be held in the Court Administrator's Office until an amendment containing the missing information is filed in the Prothonotary's Office. If after two notices no amendment has been filed, your motion will be sent back to the Prothonotary's office and placed in the file and no further action will be taken. Rule 208.3(a). Motions. (2) The motion shall state whether or not a Judge has ruled upon any other issue in the same or related matter, and, if so, shall specify the judge and the issue. (9) All motions and petitions shall contain a paragraph indicating that the concurrence of any opposing counsel of record was sought and the response of said counsel; provided, that this requirement shall not apply to preliminary objections, motions for judgment on the pleadings, motions for summary judgment, petitions to open or strike judgments, and motions for post-trial relief. Please note that you do not need to file an additional proposed order or provide additional envelopes for service. Your amendment will be attached to the original motion. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. Sincerely, Melissa H. Calvanelli Assistant Court Administrator 12/14/2007