Satterwhite v. Dy

• Decision Date: 23 January 2013
• Docket Number: CASE NO. C11-0528-JCC
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
• Parties: JERMAINE E. SATTERWHITE, Plaintiff, v. MARIA LUISA DY, M.D.; MANUELL LACIST; DENISE DUBLE, FNP; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10 and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.

JERMAINE E. SATTERWHITE, Plaintiff,

v. MARIA LUISA DY, M.D.; MANUELL LACIST; DENISE DUBLE, FNP;JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10 and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.

CASE NO. C11-0528-JCC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Dated: January 23, 2013

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Jermaine Satterwhite claims that Defendant Manuell Lacist, a physician's assistant at the federal detention center where Satterwhite was incarcerated, violated Satterwhite's Eighth Amendment rights by failing to prescribe treatment for, recommend Satterwhite for treatment for, or otherwise respond to Satterwhite's latent tuberculosis infection. (Dkt. No. 16.) Currently before the Court are (1) Lacist's motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity (Dkt. No. 76) and (2) Satterwhite's motion for a continuance of the Court's decision on Lacist's motion (Dkt. No. 80). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES Lacist's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 76) and DENIES Satterwhite's motion for a continuance (Dkt. No. 80) as moot, for the reasons explained herein.

I. BACKGROUND

The following comes from Satterwhite's first amended complaint and three documents Lacist asserts were in effect at the time of the alleged constitutional violation: the U.S. Bureau of Prison's Program Statements on Infectious Disease Management and Patient Care, and its Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Tuberculosis ("Tuberculosis Guidelines"). (Dkt. No. 77 Exs. A, E, D.) Lacist submitted these documents with his motion for summary judgment and attests that he was "ordered to follow and adhere to" them when he was employed at the Federal Detention Center in Seatac, Washington ("FDC-Seatac"). (Dkt. No. 77 ¶¶ 7, 11, 13.) Because Lacist has moved for summary judgment, the Court interprets these documents, and draws all reasonable inferences from them, in the light most favorable to Satterwhite. See Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F.2d 665, 668 (9th Cir. 1980).

A. Tuberculosis and the Bureau's Program Statements and Guidelines

Tuberculosis is caused by infection with M. tuberculosis. (Dkt. No. 77 Ex. D at 51.) M. tuberculosis is transmitted through airborne respiratory droplets when an individual with active pulmonary tuberculosis coughs, sneezes, or speaks. (Id.) An individual who is infected with the organism but who has not developed active tuberculosis is deemed to have latent tuberculosis infection ("LTBI"). (Id.) Approximately 7-10% of infected persons who are not treated for LTBI develop active tuberculosis disease at some point in their lives. (Id.) Active tuberculosis is a serious, potentially life-threatening disease. See McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997) ("highly contagious and deadly disease"); Lauria v. Donahue, 438 F. Supp. 2d 131, 135 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) ("the deadly disease"); Stewart v. Taft, 235 F. Supp. 2d 763, 765 n.1 (N.D. Ohio 2002) ("communicable and potentially deadly disease").

At the time of the alleged constitutional violation, the Bureau's Tuberculosis Guidelines and Infectious Disease Management Program Statement provided that the Bureau would screen each inmate for tuberculosis within two calendar days of initial incarceration using the Tuberculin Skin Test ("TST"), also known as the purified protein derivative ("PPD") test. (Dkt.No. 77 Exs. A at 14, D at 53.) "The test is 'read' by measuring in millimeters (mm) the largest diameter of the indurated area (palpable swelling) on the forearm." (Id. Ex. D at 54.) An induration of 5 millimeters or greater was considered "TST-positive." (Id. at 55.) The Guidelines provided that all TST-positive inmates should be referred for a chest X-ray to rule out active tuberculosis disease. (Id.)

The Infectious Disease Management Program Statement provided that "[i]nmates will be evaluated and treated for latent TB infection or TB disease in accordance with guidance from the Medical Director" and that "[f]ollow-up periodic chest x-rays for inmates with previously positive tuberculin skin tests will be conducted based upon guidance from the Medical Director." (Id. Ex. A at 15-16; see also id. at 31 ("Once an institution physician determines a TB exposure has occurred, the exposed individuals will be offered evaluation and treatment for latent TB in accordance with the U.S. Public Health Service recommendations and guidance from the Medical Director.").) The Guidelines, which had been "updated to reflect recently issued guidance from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on TB control in correctional facilities," in turn provided that "all" "inmates who have a positive TST" of "10 millimeters or greater" "should be evaluated for LTBI treatment," and "[t]reatment of LTBI should be considered for all TST positive inmates regardless of age, when no medical contraindications to treatment exist, and previous adequate treatment has not been provided." (Id. Ex. D at 47, 55, 57; see id. at 51 ("Identification of latent TB infection provides an opportunity for providing treatment to prevent future development of TB disease."); id. at 53 ("[P]roviding treatment for those with latent TB infection [is an] important public health measure[].").) An exception to the rule of considering all TST-positive inmates with an induration of 10 millimeters or greater for LTBI treatment was that "[i]nmates in detention centers should ordinarily not be prescribed LTBI treatment if their anticipated incarceration is uncertain or is less than several months, unless [certain] . . . high priority indications have been identified . . . ." (Id. at 58.) Finally, certain individuals—such as "converters," whose TST reading had increased by 10 millimetersor more in a two-year period and thus were at a higher risk of developing active tuberculosis— were "high priority candidates for LTBI treatment." (Id. at 57.)

According to the Guidelines, there were two "standard options for treatment of LTBI." (Id.) The "preferred regimen" was six to nine months of isoniazid by mouth along with pyridoxine: "Nine months of isoniazid should be administered . . . , whenever feasible, for all . . . inmates." (Id. at 58 (emphasis in original).) The Guidelines provided that "[g]roup counseling or other structured educational efforts should be considered for inmates who refuse treatment for LTBI when treatment is clearly indicated" and that "[i]nmates who refuse treatment of LTBI should sign a refusal form to be kept in their medical record, documenting their declination of treatment." (Id. at 60, 62.)

The Guidelines also included a section on "TB contact investigations," which the prison was to carry out when it identified "a potentially infectious TB case" with whom others might have come into contact: "The goal of a TB contact investigation is both to identify other active cases of TB (rare) and to identify and completely treat individuals with new latent TB infection, particularly those at high risk for developing the disease." (Id. at 69 (emphasis added).) The Guidelines provided that "[f]ocus should be placed on identifying the highest risk contacts [i.e., those with the greatest duration or concentration of exposure], completely screening them and providing a full course of treatment of LTBI for those who are infected." (Id. (emphasis in original).) Under "Infection Control Measures," the Guidelines provided, "Inmates should be advised of the importance of completing treatment for either TB disease or LTBI if diagnosed." (Id. at 75.) Finally, under "TB Program Management," the Guidelines provided that "[p]articular attention should be focused on ensuring," inter alia, that "[i]nmates are treated for LTBI in accordance with recommended guidelines." (Id. at 78.)

The Bureau's Program Statement on Patient Care provided that each prison would provide ambulatory care services through primary care provider teams ("PCPT"). (Id. Ex. E at 113.) Under the PCPT model:

[E]ach inmate is assigned to a medical team of health care providers and support staff who are responsible for managing the inmate's health care needs.

. . . . .

[M]id-level providers (MLP) need to be available to provide diagnostic and treatment services to the inmate population . . . . [E]ach MLP [is] assigned a caseload of [a certain number of] inmates.

. . . . .

A physician will provide clinical oversight for multiple provider teams. The physician, as the licensed provider of the team, is responsible for the care that team delivers.

. . . . .

[T]he MLP is the PCPT's primary care provider . . . . The MLP will serve as the primary point of contact for inmates assigned to their caseload.

(Id. at 113-15.)

The Program Statement on Patient Care also provided:

SOAP Format. Patient encounters will be documented using the SOAP format:

• S—Subjective or Symptomatic data

O—Objective Data

A—Assessment

P—Plan

Patient education is a required element of the treatment plan. Education may be documented under "P," or may be documented separately ("SOAPE").

(Id. at 120.)

B. Alleged Eighth Amendment Violation

Satterwhite was incarcerated at FDC-Seatac from approximately March 27, 2008 to April 21, 2009. (Dkt. No. 16 ¶ 3.1.) The TST that prison staff administered to Satterwhite upon his incarceration revealed an 18-millimeter induration. (Id. ¶ 3.3.) His chest X-ray was negative for active tuberculosis disease. (Id. ¶¶ 3.5-3.6.) On April 8, 2008, Defendant Manuell Lacist, a physician's assistant and "mid-level provider" at FDC-Seatac, performed a "History & Physical" exam of Satterwhite. (Id. ¶ 3.8; Dkt. No. 77 Exs. B-C.) Under "Tuberculosis," Lacist recorded that Satterwhite had a "Positive" "PPD Result" within the last year and that his chest X-ray was normal. (Dkt. No. 77 Ex. B at 33.) Lacist admits in his motion for summary judgment that heknew from this information that Satterwhite...