Tag Archives: federal tort claims act

‘Sexual Abuse Victims: We’ve Got Your Back!’ Said No BOP Official Ever – Update for October 5, 2023

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LEGAL ABUSE CONTINUES AFTER SEX ABUSE ENDS

The California office of a New York law firm announced last week that it had sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons alleging that 10 inmates were sexually assaulted while in BOP custody while housed at FCI Dublin. The action was brought under the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

Slater Slater Schulman LLP said at least 20 different BOP sex abuse perps have been identified by at least 92 former female inmates at FCI Dublin. And the lawyers are going after them.

rape230207However, a 6th Circuit decision last week suggests that holding the BOP liable for its employees’ sex crimes could be a hard sell.

L.C. (we’ll call her ‘Lonnie,’ not her real name) was in the BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Program at FMC Lexington when her path crossed with Hosea Lee, a BOP RDAP instructor and serial rapist. When happened then was ugly and left Lonnie with a sexually transmitted disease. Hosea was eventually walked off the compound, arrested and convicted.

Lonnie was traumatized by being repeatedly raped and assaulted by a person she was powerless to resist. Eventually, she got medical treatment for herpes, at which time a BOP Health Services nurse told her that Harry had given herpes to all of his inmate victims. She said another BOP employee, a counselor, told her that Hosea had been reported to BOP officials a long time before she had been raped.

Lonnie sued the BOP under the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing that the agency had a duty to protect inmates from serial rapist employees and it negligently failed to do so. To make clear how seriously the BOP takes its obligations to protect inmates from criminal sex acts of its own staff, the BOP argued in court that it had discretion whether to protect female inmates from sexual predator staff and anyway, Lonnie had not made a plausible claim that BOP management knew that Hosea liked to rape female inmates.

didnotknow231005Under the FTCA, a federal agency is immune from being sued for negligence if it is accused of not performing a function that is discretionary or grounded in policy. The district court held that investigating and taking action where the BOP has become aware of alleged misconduct is discretionary, so Lonnie’s FTCA suit had to be dismissed. Even if that were not so, the district court said, Lonnie’s negligence claim should be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) because her complaint failed to “allege sufficiently” that the BOP knew or should have known of Hosea’s attacks.

Last week, the 6th Circuit left Lonnie with nothing. The Circuit agreed that BOP Program Statements impose a mandatory requirement that the first BOP official with “information concerning incidents or possible incidents of sexual abuse or sexual harassment,” report such information and investigate immediately. “These are mandatory regulations and policies that allow no judgment or choice,” the 6th said.

But Lonnie had not “plausibly alleged that BOP officials failed timely to report or investigate information that Lee may have been attacking women incarcerated at FMC before November 22, 2019,” the Court ruled. While Lonnie pointed to her allegation that a BOP told her that Hosea had been reported “a long time ago,” her complaint “provides no context for when the counselor made the statement, which limits our ability to draw inferences that the counselor herself knew of Lee’s attacks before November 22, 2019, or that the counselor later came to learn that others knew of his attacks before then. [Lonnie’s] allegation that a medical department staffer told her on February 18, 2020, that all of Lee’s victims had contracted herpes does not permit the inference that staff treated multiple other victims before November 22, 2019, and knew then that each person they were treating had contracted herpes because Lee had attacked them.”

bartsimpson231005The Circuit admitted that “there is of course a possibility that some BOP officials knew of Lee’s assaults before November 22, 2019, and failed to act on that information… With so many holes in the timeline in [Lonnie’s] allegations, we cannot plausibly draw the necessary inferences in a manner that satisfies the pleading standard.”

In an opinion piece appearing on CNN two weeks ago, US District Court Judge Reggie Walton (District of Columbia) wrote that a commission he served on heard from former prisoners who “described in detail to me and to my fellow commission members the abuse they endured while incarcerated, sometimes over many years. Some recounted how they were disbelieved, silenced or unofficially punished for speaking out and seeking help. The formerly incarcerated people who testified spoke of the guilt, shame and rage that consumed them after being sexually assaulted and how the abuse cast a shadow over their lives even years after they were released — trauma evident in their voices, on their faces and in the tears many shed.”

As the government made clear before the 6th Circuit, it will take any position necessary – even that the BOP is not liable if it knows its employees are raping prisoners – to avoid paying damages to those harmed by agency negligence.

PR Newswire, Approximately 250 Survivors of Sexual Assault File Lawsuits Against U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons and State of California For Being Sexually Assaulted by Correctional Staff While Incarcerated (September 27, 2023)

LC v. United States, Case No. 22-6105, 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 25695 (6th Cir. September 28, 2023)

CNN, Opinion: Sexual assault should never be part of a prison term (September 17, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

The Law’s Still Majestic… – Update for July 26, 2021

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

“THE LAW, IN ITS MAJESTIC EQUALITY…

… forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread,” so goes a famous 19th quotation. If you recall it, you have either read The Red Lily (which is unlikely) or remember that I’ve used the quotation before.

quackdoc210707It’s just that the observation is so apt, especially where prisoners try to bring Federal Tort Claim Act cases alleging medical malpractice by the quackery that is BOP healthcare.

In an effort to cut down on worthless medical malpractice (“med-mal”) claims, most state procedural rules require that such a claim be accompanied by an expert’s affidavit attesting that the plaintiff’s cause of action has some merit. If you’re the average man or woman on the street, and you watch mid-day game shows, you have already lined up a lawyer who will take your case for a 40% cut of the winnings. So it’s no problem: your lawyer has a compliant expert who will provide an affidavit swearing that some imbecile medical provider cut off your right leg and attached it to your ear.

But if you happen to be in prison, you’ve got a couple of hurdles to jump. First, finding a personal injury lawyer who wants to devote her time and money (yeah, PI lawyers front the expenses of the trial, which may hit six figures in some instances) is tough. As hard as it is to believe, juries do not have a lot of sympathy for federal prisoners who say they were hurt by lousy doctoring. Second, the biggest components of damages are lost earnings and medical costs. Inmates have no medical costs (except for the occasional $2.00 health service co-pay) or any lost earnings.

Because damages are what fire up a jury to award big bucks, the personal injury bar does not see inmate cases as being worth much.

pay210708‘No lawyer’ means that inmates have to pony up $5,000 right from jump to hire an expert, in order to get the affidavit they need to avoid having their FTCA claims thrown out.

Seems fair, right? After all, the requirement applies to all med-mal plaintiffs, rich and poor alike. The guy left in a wheelchair by a negligent truck driver, being represented by some megafirm needs an expert. So does an inmate making 25¢ an hour, Equality realized!

A couple of years ago, the 6th and 7th Circuits ruled that the Federal Rules do not require such affidavits, and thus are inconsistent with state rules. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution holds that federal rules displace inconsistent state rules, and the FTCA expressly holds that federal rules govern its application.

notapply210726Last week, the 4th Circuit followed the 6th and 7th, holding that a West Virginia law requiring medical certifications before filing med-mal suits does not apply to FTCA actions. “About half of all states similarly demand that medical malpractice plaintiffs secure some sort of early support from a qualifying expert,” the Circuit said. “But there is now a growing consensus that certificate requirements like West Virginia’s do not govern actions in federal court, because they conflict with and are thus supplanted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure… We agree, and hold that failure to comply with West Virginia’s MPLA is not grounds for dismissal of Pledger’s federal-court FTCA action.”

Pledger v. Lynch, Case No 18-2213, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 21587 (4th Cir, July 21, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Inmate FTCA Medical Complaints Don’t Need Expert Affidavits, Two Circuits Say – Update for November 11, 2019

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

“THE LAW, IN ITS MAJESTIC EQUALITY…

anatole191111… forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread,” so goes a famous 19th-century quotation. Seldom was that better illustrated than in Federal Tort Claims Act cases brought by prisoners for medical malpractice.

There was a time I thought that complaints about poor health care in the Federal Bureau of Prisons system could be written off to inmate kvetching. After all, inmates do not want to be where they are, and beyond complaining about the alleged lousy criminal justice system that put them where they are, prisoners naturally complain about every aspect of prison – food, correctional officers, recreational opportunities – that they can conjure. But without a doubt, the principal complaint is that the BOP healthcare system is a disaster.

But I have seen too many cases where this is true. In my estimation, the problem is not that the healthcare itself. When the BOP decides that treatment is needed, that treatment is pretty good (chiefly because the specialists brought in are not government doctors, but local practitioners). As I have written about before, the difficulty is in convincing the people who populate the BOP healthcare establishment that care is needed to begin with.

drquack191111Those healthcare people usually conclude, as a first line of defense, that an inmate is malingering. I have worked on cases of a guy with a hump that erupted on his shoulder the size of a grapefruit, who asked about it for months only to have BOP physician assistants tell him (without a biopsy) that it was merely a benign lipoma. When the healthcare people grudgingly consented to have it looked at by an outside surgeon, the inmate quickly began chemotherapy, surgery and radiation – in that order – for the liposarcoma it was. I have worked on cases where inmates went blind because the BOP refused to send him for an outside vision test, which would have showed ocular hypertension, and where an inmate lost a leg to diabetes because healthcare staff argued he was lying about what was diabetic neuropathy.

When a prisoner suffers from poor healthcare, he or she may sue for medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act. An FTCA med-mal suit must be brought after making an administrative claim on a prescribed Department of Justice form, and is governed by the substantive malpractice law of the state in which the care was given or withheld.

As every first-year law student learns, in federal civil procedure – at least where the action is in federal court because of a diversity of citizenship of the parties – federal procedural law (the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) is followed by the substantive law of the state is followed. While an FTCA action is not a diversity case, courts have ruled that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply nonetheless.

And there’s the rub. In an effort to cut down on worthless med-mal claims, most state rules require that when the complaint is filed, it must be accompanied by an affidavit of an expert that the plaintiff’s cause of action has some merit. This requirement means that inmates have to pony up $2,500 to $5,000 right from jump to hire an expert in order to avoid having their FTCA claims dismissed as soon as they are filed.

witness191111That seems fair, right? After all, the requirement applies to all med-mal plaintiffs. The rich and poor alike are required to come up with thousands of dollars in order to even get a foot in the door. Anatole France would be proud – what “majestic equality!”

Last week, two circuits said otherwise. In the 6th Circuit, Dennis Gallivan had surgery while at FCI Elkton. He says the procedure was botched, and left him permanently disabled. Dennis sued under the FTCA.

The district court held that Ohio Civil Rule 10(D)(2) governed. That rule requires a person alleging medical negligence to include a medical professional’s affidavit stating that the claim has merit. Dennis didn’t have such an affidavit (or the spare $2,500-plus needed to get one), so his FTCA suit was thrown out.

Last week, the 6th Circuit reinstated Dennis’ complaint. The Federal Rules do not require such an affidavit, and thus are inconsistent with Ohio’s rule. This inconsistency is important, the Court said, because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that federal rules displace inconsistent state rules, and federal rules govern the FTCA’s application.

Ironically, one of the government’s arguments against Denny’s position was that a 7th Circuit decision, Hahn v. Walsh, had previously held that a state rule requiring an affidavit could coexist with the federal rules that did not require such an affidavit. The 6th rejected that argument, only about 48 hours after a 7th Circuit decision held that Hahn did not apply to the FTCA.

The 7th addressed 735 ILCS § 5/2-622, a state statute that requires the plaintiff in a medical-malpractice suit to file an affidavit stating that “there is a reasonable and meritorious cause” for litigation. . The plaintiff needs a physician’s report to support the affidavit’s assertions. Like the 6th Circuit, the 7th held that because Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 did not require such an affidavit, the Illinois statute was inconsistent, and thus did not apply to an FTCA complaint.

accessdenied191111The 7th observed that “a prisoner may have insuperable difficulty obtaining a favorable physician’s report before filing a complaint, so if a complaint not accompanied by an… affidavit is defective, many a prisoner will be unable to litigate a malpractice claim. But if a prisoner or other pro se plaintiff has until the summary judgment stage to comply with the state law, information obtained in discovery may allow a physician to evaluate the medical records and decide whether there is reasonable cause for liability.”

These cases are significant. They do not suggest that a prisoner will not need an expert: every med-mal case sooner or later requires one or more. But it does mean that a prisoner can get to the discovery stage of the proceeding, and have a greater likelihood of getting a tort lawyer to pick up the case and expenses, than he or she did before.

Gallivan v. United States, 2019 U.S.App.LEXIS 33304 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 2019
Young v. United States, 2019 U.S.App.LEXIS 32944 (7th Cir. Nov. 4, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root