PHILADELPHIA – A panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the ruling of a lower federal court, which granted summary judgment to municipal and medical defendants against a discrimination lawsuit filed by an inmate in a Philadelphia prison.
On March 30, Third Circuit judges Thomas M. Hardiman, Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. and Stephanos Bibas upheld the summary judgment ruling in favor of the City of Philadelphia, Corizon Health, Inc. and MHM Services, Inc., and against plaintiff Leslie Boyd.
Boyd served a bit more than three months in a Philadelphia prison, where he suffered from back pain, mobility problems and bipolar disorder. As a result, he repeatedly fell and complained of sickness and pains. A few months into his time there, he fell again, lapsed into a coma, suffered spinal damage and grew more ill.
In a subsequent civil lawsuit, Boyd charged the City of Philadelphia with disability discrimination and the medical and mental health providers with accompanying tort claims.
However, the District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, leading Boyd to appeal to the Third Circuit. Bibas authored the Court’s ruling.
“Boyd got reasonable accommodations, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Contrary to his assertions, there is no record dispute that Boyd got a lower bunk, followed soon by a cane and then a wheelchair. He says that he complained about the height of his bed and toilet,” Bibas said.
“But at his deposition, he admitted that he got a lower bunk immediately and could get from his bed to the toilet using his wheelchair. He also says that he asked for ‘grab bars’ and ‘floor padding.’ But at his deposition, when asked if he requested accommodations, he never mentioned these. And he says now that when he fell, the guards refused to help him. But at his deposition, he admitted that when he asked for help getting off the floor, ‘the guards always helped me. The guards helped me a lot.”
According to the Third Circuit, Boyd never tried to explain these contradictions, and the District Court properly disregarded his declaration as a sham affidavit, which leaves no genuine dispute of material fact.
Furthermore, Bibas stated that Boyd offered no proof that anyone denied him an accommodation because of his disability, leading the District Court to correctly grant summary judgment against him on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.
“Boyd’s tort claims likewise fail. Start with his Eighth Amendment claim. That requires not just medical mistakes, but deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The prison staff, however, did not ignore objective evidence that he needed medical care,” Bibas said.
“Boyd made sick calls on 38 separate days, sometimes multiple times per day. Each time, staff responded within two or three days. Medical staff repeatedly prescribed medications and treatment and monitored his lab work.”
Though Boyd filed two expert reports by the discovery deadline, Bibas stated that neither report described the standard of care or how the providers fell short of it. Later, Boyd offered a third report with his response to the summary judgment motions, but Bibas said he filed it months late, even though he had been sitting on the report for years.
As a result, the Court found Boyd failed to make a prima facie case for medical malpractice.
“Finally, Boyd offered no proof that anyone intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him. Throughout his prison stay, guards gave him the mobility aids he asked for and helped him up whenever he fell. Medical and mental-health staff saw him regularly and evaluated his condition. They prescribed medications, treatments, and counseling, and never kept him waiting long. His treatment was hardly ‘atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society,” Bibas said.
“Boyd no doubt became ill in prison. But he got frequent care and help from guards, doctors, and nurses and was given mobility aids. So he has not shown that the City or the Providers are liable. We will affirm.”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 20-1931
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:17-cv-03195
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com