Federal Appeals Court Eyes Hepatitis Treatment for Inmates
Florida Justice Institute executive director Dante Trevisani, who represents the plaintiffs, says inmates who don't get the treatment in the early stages "face a substantial risk of serious harm."
June 11, 2020 at 01:20 PM
6 minute read
With a potential $28 million price tag looming, a federal appeals court heard arguments in a long-running dispute about whether Florida is providing proper treatment to prisoners with hepatitis C.
The class-action lawsuit centers on the use of an expensive type of medication known as "direct acting anti-virals" to treat hepatitis C, a contagious liver disease that can be fatal.
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker last year ordered the Florida Department of Corrections to provide the treatment to all inmates with the disease, but the agency appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The state does not dispute that direct acting anti-virals should be given to inmates with later stages of hepatitis C. But the corrections department contends that it would not violate prisoners' constitutional rights if they did not receive the high-cost medication in the early stages.
In a budget passed in March, state lawmakers set aside $28 million in reserves to pay for the treatment if needed.
The state asked the Atlanta-based appeals court to fast-track a decision in the case to make sure the money would be available in time for an April 2021 deadline to carry out Walker's order.
During a hearing Wednesday of a three-judge panel, Judge Beverly Martin repeatedly pressed Florida Deputy Solicitor General James Percival to explain why the state is limiting treatment to inmates with more advanced stages of the liver disease. People with early stages are classified as "F0" or "F1" patients.
"What is a reason other than cost for not treating an F0 or F1?" Martin asked.
"Our judgment about medical necessity," Percival, who represents the corrections department, said. "Our position is that you can basically do a cost-benefit analysis, just like a person would do if they were paying for their own treatment outside of prison."
Walker last year ordered a two-year process to provide direct acting anti-virals to inmates with early stages of the disease. In the April 2019 ruling, the federal judge wrote that even inmates with no or mild liver scarring "have serious medical needs, FDC [the Department of Corrections] is aware of those needs, and FDC's decision not to treat those inmates — without any medical reason for that decision — constitutes deliberate indifference."
Dante Trevisani, who represents the plaintiffs, asked the panel Wednesday to uphold Walker's ruling, saying inmates who don't get the treatment in the early stages "face a substantial risk of serious harm."
But Judge Kevin C. Newsom pointed out that previous court decisions have held states aren't required to provide "medical care that is great or even very good" to prisoners.
"Certainly, in the private world, there are lots and lots of people who can't get the medical treatment that they need solely because it's too expensive," Newsom said. "You are saying that no matter how expensive the treatment, a prisoner is entitled to better medical treatment than they are on the outside."
The judge asked Trevisani if nonprison patients in the early stages of hepatitis C "have to wrangle" with insurance companies to cover the costs of the expensive medications.
But Trevisani said all insurance companies are providing direct acting anti-virals to F0 and F1 patients, and the federal government is covering the costs of the treatment for veterans and Medicaid patients.
"There's a concession in the record that treatment is medically necessary," Trevisani, executive director of the Florida Justice Institute, said. "We're not saying that costs can never be taken into account. They just can't be taken into account to the exclusion of any medical judgment."
But Newsom persisted, posing a hypothetical situation in which an inmate is beginning to suffer from hearing loss. One doctor might decide that a cochlear implant is necessary, while another might say hearing aids are sufficient, Newsom said.
The hepatitis C case is different than "a reasonable disagreement between two forms of treatment," Trevisani said.
"It's a choice between the only form of treatment that's available or none at all, where the only reason for not providing that … is financial," he argued. "The secretary [of the Department of Corrections] hasn't argued that they can't afford to provide this treatment. They're just saying that they don't want to pay for it."
According to a monthly status report filed by the Department of Corrections with Walker in May, 8,338 of the state's roughly 94,000 prisoners were identified as having chronic hepatitis C. But the number of inmates who have the disease could be much higher, as new prisoners enter the system and as officials continue to screen for infections.
The Legislature set aside $28 million in the budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1 to address the cost of the drugs involved in the lawsuit, with a caveat that the money could be steered to address the coronavirus pandemic.
"Release of the funds shall be contingent upon an adverse outcome against the state, after the conclusion of all appeals, in the class action lawsuit which required the treatment of inmates testing positive for level F0-F1 [early stage] Hepatitis C as of December 2017, and the submission of a treatment plan for such inmates by the department specifying the funds required to provide treatment which can be initiated or completed prior the end of Fiscal Year 2020-2021," budget fine print, known as proviso language, said.
The fine print also said the department could request the release of the money "if needed to respond to a pandemic in the prison system."
During Wednesday's hearing, which was held by telephone, Trevisani told the three judges that it's unclear how much the drugs cost the corrections department.
The treatment, which originally cost up to $75,000 when first released in 2013, costs $37,000 for a 12-week regimen, according to court documents filed by the state three years ago.
Since then, the state hasn't revealed how much is being spent on the direct acting anti-virals, Trevisani said.
"We have a deposition in June of 2018 where we heard the department is getting an aggressive discount on the price, but we don't actually know the cost," he said.
Dara Kam reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250