Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-08173
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 16
In Allen v. New York, Judge Preska entered a permanent injunction requiring prison officials to provide individualized chronic-pain care after finding Eighth Amendment violations.
The permanent injunction directly affects Defendant Moores, her successor as Chief Medical Officer, covered DOCCS personnel, and others acting with them or on their behalf. It protects the certified class of incarcerated people in DOCCS custody who suffer or will suffer from chronic pain or neuropathies and require individualized assessments for treatment with medications with abuse potential.
What happened
In Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, prisoners alleged that medical staff denied or stopped medications with abuse potential for chronic pain and neuropathies without individualized medical assessments. The court certified a class for injunctive relief and held a trial on whether permanent relief was necessary.
After considering the evidence, the court found that DOCCS medical providers continued denying or discontinuing chronic-pain and neuropathy medications without medical justification. It also found that policies and customs requiring individualized assessments were still needed to protect the class members from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Judge Loretta A. Preska vacated the preliminary injunction and entered a permanent injunction. The order requires compliance with DOCCS Policy 1.24A, training for medical personnel, patient coding and individualized assessments, reporting to the plaintiffs, notice of policy changes, and later review of whether the injunction should continue.
The detailed version
- Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · No. 1:19-cv-08173
- Loretta Preska
- Nov. 22, 2023
Background
Plaintiff prisoners in the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) system brought this action under the Eighth Amendment, which protects prisoners from cruel and inhumane treatment. They alleged that DOCCS medical staff denied or discontinued medications with abuse potential for patients with chronic pain or neuropathies without individually assessing patients’ medical needs or the effectiveness of treatment.
DOCCS rescinded its former medication policy in February 2021 and replaced it with Health Services Policy 1.24A, titled “Prescribing for Chronic Pain.” The plaintiffs nevertheless argued that unconstitutional practices continued. The court certified an injunctive class consisting of incarcerated people in DOCCS custody who suffer or will suffer from chronic pain or neuropathies and require individualized assessments for treatment with medications with abuse potential.
The court previously granted a preliminary injunction. It later held a four-day bench trial on the merits of whether a permanent injunction was necessary. The court incorporated evidence from the preliminary-injunction hearing into the permanent-injunction trial record.
Merits Findings
The court found that the plaintiff class succeeded on its Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim. In this context, deliberate indifference means failing to respond adequately to a prisoner’s serious medical need. The court found that class members had suffered irreparable harm and that DOCCS policies and customs still allowed providers to fail to provide reasonable pain medication without individualized assessments.
The court also found that the balance of equities favored the plaintiffs and that a permanent injunction served the public interest. Applying the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court determined that the ordered relief was narrowly drawn, extended no further than necessary to correct the constitutional violations, and was the least intrusive necessary remedy. The court also considered possible effects on public safety, the criminal-justice system, and prison administration.
Permanent Injunction and Disposition
The court vacated the preliminary injunction entered on June 12, 2023, as of the entry of this order. It entered a permanent injunction requiring Defendant Moores, her successor in the Chief Medical Officer position, and covered personnel acting for or with them to require DOCCS medical staff to comply with Policy 1.24A.
The order requires, among other things:
- DOCCS patients with chronic pain to receive Problem List Code 338, “Pain Management.” - Primary care providers to be able to prescribe medication they consider appropriate, with an approval requirement for non-formulary medication unless documented formulary treatments were unsuccessful in achieving functional treatment goals or caused unacceptable side effects. - Specialty consultations when indicated and documentation when a primary care provider does not follow a specialist’s recommendations. - A meeting with the patient, analysis of the patient’s situation, and documentation before pain-management medication is discontinued. - Primary-care visits at least every 90 days and an annual discussion of the treatment plan for patients with Code 338. - Training of relevant medical personnel within 45 days, and a program for training newly hired or rehired medical providers within the specified time limits. - Identification and coding of patients with chronic pain, individualized assessments of their treatment needs, and efforts to identify and prioritize class members whose medications were discontinued between June 1, 2017, and November 1, 2023. - Monthly production to the plaintiffs of documentary proof of individualized assessments, including the patient’s identity, reassessment date, facility, provider, and results.
The order also requires notice to the court and the parties of any change to Policy 1.24A. Within two years after entry of the order, the parties must inform the court of their positions on whether the permanent injunction should continue or terminate.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.