Federal court gives favorable ruling to jail
April 24, 2002
A federal court has issued a summary judgment in favor of the jail in a lawsuit filed by an inmate claiming delayed medical treatment caused him pain and suffering.
U.S. District Court Judge Tom Russell in his opinion and order also questions the relevance of a U.S. Justice Department report issued in October 1999 that was highly critical of the jail's medical care of inmates.
Inmate Norman Springs who was serving a two and one half year sentence for DUI-related traffic offenses filed the lawsuit in March of 2001 and asked for two million dollars in damages.
Springs, on April 1, 2000 at 3:20 a.m., complained of severe pain in the upper right abdomen. Deputy Bill Adams who is on call to the jail to transport sick inmates arrived at the jail within the hour and transported Springs to Western Baptist Hospital. Springs was admitted at 4:55 a.m. and underwent an emergency appendectomy beginning at 8:05 a.m.
Springs had an extended stay in the hospital due to peritonitis developing from his ruptured appendix. Springs suffers from no long term ill effects from the appendicitis and peritonitis.
Springs attorney, Tod Medibow, as a response to the jail's attorney, Stacey Blankenship's motion for a summary judgment, entered a report on the jail's medical care by Dr. Joseph Fowkles. Dr. Fowkles who did the assessment during a November 23, 1998 jail visit was under contract with the U. S. Justice Department. Dr. Fowkles, in his report, was highly critical of the jail's medical care even using the phrase "most dysfunctional."
Jailer Cliff Gill was highly critical of Dr. Fowkles' report when it was released in October 1999, eleven months after the U. S. Justice Department's investigation of the jail.
Judge Russell, in his nine page summary judgment, states "The court agrees with the defendants (the jail) that Springs has failed to demonstrate a 'policy or custom' of constitutional violations at the jail. The expert report (Dr. Fowkles) relied upon by Springs is eighteen months old, (at the time of Springs medical incident) and reflects little on the current conditions at the jail. Indeed, the records indicate substantial changes have occurred at the jail since the issuance of the report relied on by Springs, further undermining its relevance. Other than the expert report, Springs offers no evidence of an official policy or ongoing custom of unconstitutional treatment of prisoners at the jail."
Jailer Gill and Deputy Adams had been named as defendants in the U.S. District Court suit which was dismissed with prejudice.
The suit's court record can be viewed on the U. S. District Court site.