Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-0010 Civil (2)COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, . Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN EQUITY VS. BOBBY E. BRIGHTWELL, Defendant 10 EQUITY 1993 IN RE: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MEDICAL EXPERT BEFORE OLER, J ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of May, 1993, upon consideration of the Petitioner's Petition for Appointment of Medical Expert, and following a hearing, the Petitioner's petition is denied. By the Court, J Wesley Ole Clifford D. Swift, Esquire For the Commonwealth Robert P. Kline, Esquire Court-appointed Counsel for the Defendant SCIC :slr COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, , Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN EQUITY VS. BOBBY E. BRIGHTWELL, Defendant 10 EQUITY 1993 IN RE: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MEDICAL EXPERT BEFORE OLER J OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT At issue in the present case is whether the Court, upon motion of Petitioner, Bobby E. Brightwell, should appoint a medical expert for the benefit of Petitioner and his counsel in these proceedings. A hearing was held on the petition on Monday, May 10, 1993, at which time all of the evidence was presented by the Respondent, and the Court heard arguments from both counsel. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing and the arguments of counsel, the Court makes and enters the following Findings of Fact, Discussion and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Petitioner in this matter is Bobby E. Brightwell, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The Respondent is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. 3. On March 22, 1993, following a hearing, and upon consideration of the Commonwealth's Petition for a Preliminary Injunction, this Court continued the preliminary injunction previously issued ex parte on March 17, 1993, whereby Bobby E. Brightwell, Petitioner herein, was subjected to involuntary ainistration of medical treaulncnu, including but not limited to nutrition and hydration as might be medically necessary to preserve his health and life and as determined by the medical personnel duly charged with his care. 4. By Order of Court dated April 8, 1993, and upon stipulation of counsel, the Court entered an additional Order in favor of the Petitioner herein, Bobby E. Brightwell, whereby Defendant's counsel was to be notified with respect to any medical treatment administered to him in the form of insertion of a nasal gastric tube. 5. Petitioner in these proceedings has requested the appointment of an independent medical expert to assist him with respect to this equity case. 6. Testimony at the hearing held on the Petition for Appointment of Medical Expert tended to show and the Court finds that the Petitioner had become in a weakened condition due to prior hunger strikes and that the Order of Court entered on March 22, 1993, was proper and remains necessary. 7. The medical services provided to the Defendant at the State Correctional Institution are supplied by doctors who are not direct employees of the Department of Corrections, but rather are employees of a contract group which is engaged to supply independent services to the inmates of the State Correctional Institution. 8. The medical duty of these doctors, including the Commonwealth's witness in this proceeding, Dr. Bhupinder Pal Singh, is to the inmate and not to the Department of Corrections. 9. The Court is satisfied that the medical treatment supplied to the inmates at the Correctional Institution is interests. 10. The physicians treating the Petitioner in this case are available to furnish all information concerning his medical condition and their diagnosis, prognosis and recommendations to the Petitioner's counsel and will do so upon a submission of the necessary release forms. 11. The Petitioner's case in this matter would not be materially facilitated by the appointment of another independent medical expert. DISCUSSION Given the Court's findings that the treatment being afforded the Defendant is in his best interests and is of an independent nature, the Court does not believe that the Petitioner is entitled at this time to the relief being sought. The Court does understand and appreciate the efforts of the Defendant's court-appointed attorney on the Defendant's behalf, but finds that the relief requested is not appropriate as of this date. For the foregoing reasons, the following Order of Court will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of May, 1993, upon consideration of the Petitioner's Petition for Appointment of Medical Expert, and following a hearing, the Petitioner's petition is denied. By the Court, /s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr Clifford D. Swift, Esquire J. For the Commonwealth Robert P. Kline, Esquire Court-appointed Counsel for the Defendant SCIC :slr