 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adamson v. Correctional Medical Services6/14/2000
Mr. Eddie Adamson, Petitioner, is an inmate in the custody of the Maryland Division of Correction ("DOC") of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services ("the Department") and housed at the Maryland House of Correction in Jessup. On 15 July 1998, he filed suit in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Anne Arundel County against Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Respondent, a private medical provider under contract with the State of Maryland to provide such services to prisoners at the Maryland House of Correction. Petitioner alleged breach of contract and negligence with regard to inadequate medical services and claimed $2,500 in damages. The District Court dismissed the suit holding that Petitioner first had not exhausted administrative remedies mandated by the Prisoner Ligation Act (PLA), Maryland Code (1974, 1998 Repl. Vol., 1999 Supp.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 5-1001, et seq.. Petitioner appealed to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The Circuit Court, also relying on the PLA, granted Respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal. We granted certiorari to consider the following question:
Does the Prisoner Litigation Act, Maryland Code (1974, 1998 Repl. Vol.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 5- 1001, et seq., require that a prisoner exhaust administrative remedies prior to instituting suit in state court against a private corporation that is contracted to provide medical care to prisoners in the custody of the Division of Correction?
We answer in the negative and reverse.
I.
Petitioner alleged as follows in his pro se complaint in the District Court:
Both named defendants[ ] at the times relevant to the plaintiffs claim were under contract with the Maryland Division of Correction to provide comprhensive health care to Maryland State Inmates as he plaintiff duly being 3rd party beneficiary. From August 29, 1996 until the present time both named defendants in the scope of their offices as Health Care providers have recklessly and negligencly failed to provide adequate medical care for Plaintiff's painful Anterior crucrate ligarment repair of his right knee causing continued pain and suffering after the plaintiff has relentlessly saught adequate medical care to no avail[.]
On the complaint form, the boxes labeled "contract" and "tort" are checked signaling that Petitioner alleged breach of contract and negligence against Respondent. Petitioner claimed damages in the amount of $2,500. The District Court dismissed Petitioner's complaint on the ground that Petitioner had not exhausted first available administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief, as required by the PLA.
Petitioner, still pro se, appealed to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. At the hearing in that court on Respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, the parties presented a number of documents, including DOC Directives relating its Administrative Review Procedure (ARP) for inmate grievances and correspondence from the Department's Inmate Grievance Office (IGO), a separate agency within the Department, and the State Attorney General's Office. The correspondence emanated from cases unrelated to the present one, but nonetheless were used and relied on by both parties, without objection, to argue for their respective interpretations of the PLA exhaustion requirement. Two letters were authored by the Executive Director of the IGO. One letter, pre-dating the PLA's enactment, was dated 16 July 1992, and the other was dated 20 November 1998. Both IGO letters, addressed to prisoners that apparently had inquired about the proper procedures for filing claims against private
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|