Scott v. Benson

• Decision Date: 17 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. C13-4028-MWB,C13-4028-MWB
• Parties: Daniel J. Scott, Plaintiff, v. Mary Benson and Jason Smith, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

151 F.Supp.3d 931

Daniel J. Scott, Plaintiff,

v.Mary Benson and Jason Smith, Defendants.

No. C13-4028-MWB

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

Signed December 17, 2015

Patrick Thomas Parry, Forker & Parry, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.

Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Department of Justice, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARK W. BENNETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...933

A. Procedural History ...934

B. Factual Findings. ...938

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ...939

A. Issues ...939

B. Summary Judgment Standard ...940

C. Right to Refuse Treatment ....940

D. Deliberate Indifference Regarding Scott's Wheelchair And Prosthetic Legs ...947

E. Choice of Medical Providers ...949

F. Medically Restrictive Diet ...950

G. Qualified Immunity ...951

H. Other Issues ...952

III. CONCLUSION ...952

I. INTRODUCTION

Currently before me is a motion for summary judgment, filed by the defendants, requesting that I dismiss Scott's 42 U.S.C. § 1983

lawsuit.¹ (docket no. 59). Scott is a patient at the Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO), located in Cherokee, Iowa. The patients at CCUSO “have served their prison terms but in a separate civil trial have been found likely to commit further violent sexual offenses.”²

A. Procedural History

This case has an extraordinarily long and complex history. An Iowa jury found that Scott has a mental abnormality associated with being a sexually violent predator. In re Det. of Scott , 742 N.W.2d 605 (Table) (Iowa Ct.App.2007)

. Since his commitment to CCUSO, Scott has filed several suits that were assigned Judge O'Brien.

On August 5, 2011, Judge O'Brien conducted an initial review of a complaint filed by Scott in case C11–4055–DEO. Judge O'Brien appointed Scott an attorney and let his claim proceed on the following claims:

(1) he is improperly required to follow certain dietary restrictions due to illness; (2) his electric wheelchair was improperly taken from him as a form of punishment; (3) his mail is being opened to confiscate contraband; (4) CCUSO has provided him insufficient handicap facilities; and (5) CCUSO has insufficient measures to prevent the spread of infectious disease, specifically, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus, MRSA.

C11-4055-DEO, docket no. 10. Both the plaintiff and the defendants filed a number of preliminary motions in that case. On September 28, 2012, Judge O'Brien entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss. (C11-4055-DEO, docket no. 48). Judge O'Brien dismissed certain defendant(s) but denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and allowed the case to proceed against Mary Benson. Defendant Benson appealed and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge O'Brien, stating he had used the wrong legal standard. Specifically, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated:

Both parties argued to the district court that the deliberate indifference standard from the Eighth Amendment should govern Scott's Fourteenth Amendment claim. Relying on a non-binding case, McDonald v. Eilers , Civ. No. 88–2751, 1988 WL 131360, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 7, 1988)

, the district court instead analyzed Scott's claim under the professional judgment standard from Youngberg v. Romeo , 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982).

Scott v. Benson , 742 F.3d 335, 339 (8th Cir.2014)

. The court went on to say:

[W]here a patient's Fourteenth Amendment claim is for constitutionally deficient medical care, we apply the deliberate indifference standard from the Eighth Amendment. Senty – Haugen v. Goodno , 462 F.3d 876, 889–90 (8th Cir.2006)

. Accordingly, the district court should have applied the deliberate indifference standard to Scott's claim.

Scott , 742 F.3d at 339

.

Based on this ruling, Judge O'Brien ordered additional briefing. On May 12, 2014, Judge O'Brien again denied the motion for summary judgment, this time applying the deliberate indifference standard. (C11-4055-DEO, docket no. 87.) The case is currently scheduled for trial on Wednesday, January 20, 2016, to be held concurrently with the above captioned case.

While the “main issue” in case C11-4055-DEO was progressing through the court, the parties filed a number of ancillary motions. On February 3, 2012, the defendants' attorney, Gretchen Kraemer, filed an emergency motion. (C11-4055-DEO, docket no. 16). Ms. Kraemer stated that Scott's potassium was dangerously low because of his diabetes. Ms. Kraemer requested authority to transport and treat Scott even though he was refusing treatment. Id. Judge O'Brien granted the defendants' emergency motion on the same day. (C11-4055-DEO, docket no. 17).

On March 14, 2013, Ms. Kraemer filed another emergency motion stating that Scott was refusing treatment for an infection. Ms. Kraemer requested that Judge O'Brien allow the defendants to treat Scott against his will. (C11-4055-DEO, docket no. 58). On March 15, 2013, Judge O'Brien conducted a hearing regarding the defendants' emergency motion. During that hearing, Judge O'Brien advised the parties of a letter written to Judge O'Brien by Scott, in which Scott argued that forced medication is a violation of his constitutional rights. Judge O'Brien entered an order (C11-4055-DEO, docket no. 64), authorizing the defendants to transport Scott to a hospital and treat his infection. Judge O'Brien also directed that Scott's letter be filed as a new lawsuit, which became the above captioned case C13-4028-MWB. (docket nos. 1 and 7).

On April 3, 2013, Judge O'Brien entered an initial review order in this case. (docket no. 6). Judge O'Brien directed Scott's appointed counsel, Pat Parry, to file an amended complaint. In that amended complaint, Scott set out nine claims, but three of those were duplicates. (docket no. 11). First, Scott claimed he was being forced to have unwanted medical treatment, even though he had signed liability releases and a do not resuscitate form. Second, Scott claimed he was forced to endure improper dietary restrictions. Third, Scott alleged retaliation in the form of restricted privileges. Fourth, Scott alleged (a seeming deliberate indifference claim) related to needing to use an electric wheelchair and having to pay for some medical services. Fifth, Scott alleged (a seeming deliberate indifference claim) related to needing prosthetic legs and being forced to pay for them. Finally, Scott alleged (a seeming deliberate indifference claim) related to needing medical services beyond what CCUSO officials were able to provide and wanting to see independent specialists. Scott requested both damages and injunctive relief. The defendants then filed a counterclaim, also requesting injunctive relief, specifically requesting the ability to treat Scott against his will if the defendants found it medically necessary.

On September 5, 2013, Judge O'Brien traveled to the CCUSO unit in Cherokee, Iowa, and conducted a hearing on the motions for injunctive relief contained in the amended complaint and counterclaim. (docket nos. 11 and 12). On December 11, 2013, Judge O'Brien entered an order which granted some of the motions, and denied others. (docket no. 38). Regarding the main issue, Judge O'Brien denied both parties' request for a temporary injunction. (docket no. 38, p. 19-23). Judge O'Brien found that there is a constitutional right to refuse treatment, and he could not grant the defendants a temporary injunction that would violate that right.³ However, he also noted that some courts have found the right to refuse treatment diminished for those who are incarcerated. Accordingly, Judge O'Brien could not say with certainty that Scott could succeed on the merits of his case. Since success on the merits is an important factor in determining if injunctive relief is appropriate, Judge O'Brien denied Scott's request for a preliminary injunction.⁴ Judge O'Brien's stated intended result of his ruling was that he would preserve the arrangement whereby Scott could refuse most medical services. (docket no. 38, p. 22-23). As anticipated by Judge O'Brien, under the arrangement, Scott would be able to refuse routine medical treatment, but the defendants could file an emergency motion if a life threatening situation developed.

Regarding Scott's diet, as will be discussed in more detail below, Judge O'Brien unambiguously ruled that Scott's claim was barred and dismissed it. (docket no. 38, p. 30). Regarding Scott's claim related to his prosthetic legs and his electric wheelchair, Judge O'Brien ruled that the defendants had statutory authority to recoup some costs of the medical devices they purchased on Scott's behalf and that the defendants were within their rights to confiscate Scott's medical devices when he used them as weapons. Accordingly, Judge O'Brien denied Scott's claims related to those issues.⁵ (docket no. 38, p. 34, 36-37). After deciding a number of other issues Scott had brought up during the hearing, Judge O'Brien advised the parties that a settlement was likely the best outcome for Scott's case considering the case's unusual history.⁶ Finally, Judge O'Brien denied the defendants' request that they be allowed to prohibit Scott from calling the courthouse.

Thereafter, the defendants filed the present motion for summary judgment. (docket no. 59). Judge O'Brien held a hearing on May 8, 2015. On June 4, 2015, Scott filed a motion to continue trial and stay ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Scott's attorney, Mr. Parry, informed Judge O'Brien that a new witness had recently been discovered. Judge O'Brien granted the motion, over the defendants' objections, and reopened discovery for an additional sixty days. (docket no. 73.) However, no additional supplements were filed during that sixty day period and the motion for summary judgment is now fully submitted.

As Scott's two cases have progressed, Judge O'Brien addressed a...