VanDiver v. Prison Health Services, Inc
In VanDiver v. Prison Health Services, Inc., the plaintiff filed a civil action pro se alleging that the defendants are violating his Eighth Amendment rights on an ongoing basis for neglecting proper treatment of his serious chronic medical conditions including Hepatitis C and diabetes. As a result, he received partial feet amputations and suffered eye damage, and he faces possible additional amputations, coma, or death if the lack of adequate treatment continues. This is an appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. This Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was released on August 16, 2013.
The district court denied the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. He previously filed three complaints that were dismissed as frivolous. Therefore, his application was subject to the three strikes rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), requiring the assertion of the statutory exception of an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The district court concluded the allegations that he could receive further amputations were insufficient to allege an imminent danger of serious physical injury. In addition, the court stated that referring to past amputations addressed harm that was already done.
In order to sufficiently allege imminent danger, the prison condition or threat must be real, proximate, and the risk of serious physical injury must be present when the complaint is filed. Therefore, if a prisoner asserts that he or she faced danger in the past, this is insufficient to invoke this exception. Moreover, the allegations must be substantial enough that the court can draw reasonable inferences that the danger in question does indeed exist.
First, the plaintiff alleged that he was denied medical specialist referrals and other doctor-ordered accommodations. Related to the diabetes, he was allegedly denied a transport vehicle, prescribed footwear, a specific diet, and medication to relieve his symptoms. Untreated diabetes can lead to blindness, kidney dysfunction, amputation, cardiovascular disease, and other possibly fatal illnesses. He alleged that he potentially faced more limb amputations along with mental anguish and emotional distress and potential coma or death.
On appeal, the Court reviewed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s pauper status. The Court found that the plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient for him to proceed in forma pauperis under the imminent-danger exception. The district court’s contrary decision was deemed an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, it held that an allegation of a danger of serious physical injury due to being denied adequate medical treatment for chronic diseases satisfies the exception. This is because incremental harm that results in a serious physical injury may be of equal danger to an injury that occurs in one instance. In other words, the Court stated that denial of treatment that leads to partial amputations meets the standard. In turn, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
The trial lawyers at The Kronzek Firm PLC, aggressively protect the rights of clients across the lower peninsula of Michigan, including Oakland County, Wayne County, Macomb County, Ingham County, Kent County, and more.