Input:
Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 5 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANTHONY FERNANDEZ 666 Walnut Street Easton PA 18042,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

-v-

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY Northampton County Government Center 669 Washington Street Easton, PA 18042,

PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC. 3940 Locust Lane Harrisburg, PA 17109,

DR. WILLIAM SPRAGUE 272 7 106th St. Court NW Gig Harbor, WA 98332

VICTORIA GESSNER, M.D. PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC. 3940 Locust Lane Harrisburg, PA 17109

TODD HASKINS, RN, CCHP Individually and in his Official Capacity as CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS DIRECTOR, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PRISON 666 Walnut Street Easton, PA 18042,

TODD BUSKIRK Individually and in his Official Capacity as DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PRISON 666 Walnut Street Easton, Pennsylvania 18042,

Defendants.

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 6 of 22

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Anthony Fernandez, by counsel, Gerald J. Williams, Esquire, Williams Cuker

Berezofsky, brings this suit to recover for violations of his federal and state civil rights, as

follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Anthony Fernandez, is a current inmate at the Northampton County

Prison (hereinafter, "NCP") in Easton, Northampton County, in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania; he was incarcerated at NCP on or about December 31, 2006 and remains there at

the present time. While incarcerated at NCP, Mr. Fernandez has been and is completely

dependent upon Defendants for his care and well-being.

2. Defendant Northampton County is a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania.

3.

At all relevant times, Defendant, Prime Care Medical, Inc., (hereinafter, "Prime

Care"), was and is a Pennsylvania Corporation which has been under contract with Northampton

County to provide medical care and services to inmates at the Northampton County Prison,

including Mr. Fernandez.

4. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Defendant, Dr. William

Sprague, was a physician who played a role in overseeing Mr. Fernandez' treatment on behalf of

PRIME CARE and Northampton County while Mr. Fernandez was incarcerated at Northampton

County Prison.

5. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Defendant, Dr. Victoria

Gessner, was a physician who played a role in overseeing Mr. Fernandez' treatment on behalf of

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 7 of 22
PRIME CARE and Northampton County, while Mr. Fernandez was incarcerated at NCP. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Todd Haskins, RN, CCHP was and/or is the
Correctional Healthcare Solutions Director, who was and is responsible for the overall operation of the prison's healthcare services. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Todd Buskirk served as the Director of Corrections and the former Warden of the Northampton County Prison, and was responsible for the overall operation of the prison. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Jurisdiction in this Court is asserted under the provisions of28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This Court has Supplemental Jurisdiction of Plaintiff s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 9. Venue is appropriately laid in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) in that the actions complained of took place within the District, the Defendants have carried on business within the District, and at least one Defendant resides within the District.
FACTUAL ALLEGAnONS ON THE MERITS 10. Northampton County Prison ("NCP") has a history of inhumane conditions and recklessly indifferent administration and staffing. 11. As a result, the prison has become a breeding ground for disease. 12. Due to Defendants' actions and inactions over the past years, the prison has experienced repeated outbreaks of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (hereinafter, "MRSA"), a potentially deadly bacterial infection that is resistant to certain antibiotics. 13. According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MRSA infections occur in otherwise healthy people.

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 8 of 22
14. MRSA often first appears as a pimple or boil which can become red, swollen, and extremely painful; as it advances, the boils often have pus or other drainage and result in the formation of a mass below the surface of the skin.
15. Drainage of skin boils or abscesses requires the attention of a healthcare provider. 16. Once a MRSA boil drains and the mass is removed, a hole is left behind and becomes a scar which deforms the affected area. 17. More serious infections may cause pneumonia, bloodstream infections, surgical wound infections, and death. 18. Factors associated with the spread of MRSA skin infections include exposure to contaminated items and surfaces, crowded living conditions, exposure to dirty and unsanitary living environments, and openings in the skin such as cuts and abrasions.
Prison Conditions 19. At all relevant times, the conditions of the prison have been filthy and overcrowded, creating a breeding ground for diseases such as MRSA. 20. As discussed herein, Defendants have knowingly failed to maintain sanitary conditions throughout the prison, including the medical unit, causing the MRSA outbreaks and Plaintiff's associated inj uries. 21. Defendants did not clean the inmates' cells or blankets, did not allow adequate flow of fresh or clean air, did not provide adequate medical isolation facilities, and did not protect inmates from the spread of life-threatening infections. 22. There have been roof leaks that were never fixed. 23. The leaks were patched on the inside, not the outside, and buckets caught the water.

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 9 of 22
24. The leaking water ran down into the walls, ruined the sheetrock and left holes in the walls. Inmates were not given enough food resulting in substantial weight loss in many inmates.
25. Food from previous meals was left on trays. 26. Food was not handled properly and sometimes smelled. 27. Food that should have been served hot was often served cold. 28. Food often was stored in refrigerators that were not cold enough to safely store and preserve food for human consumption. 29. The drinking water was a dirty brown color. 30. The kitchen was infested with cockroaches and fruit flies. 31. On at least one occasion, the prison was locked down for a time due to sewage coming up through a grease trap in the kitchen. 32. A sewage pipe in the cafeteria ceiling leaked raw sewage into the cafeteria. 33. Cafeteria ceiling tiles were replaced regularly, but the sewage pipe was never fixed. 34. Due to the sewage leak, the cafeteria smelled like urine. 35. Showers which the inmates use were rarely cleaned, and whenlifthey were cleaned, they were never cleaned properly. 36. Showers were moldy, dirty and had hair on the floors. 37. C-Tier and K-Tier showers were merely rinsed with a hose to wash the hair down the drain. 38. Some showers had pipes coming out of the walls, missing tiles and feces on the walls.

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 10 of 22
39. The shower water was dirty. 40. Many showers had no hot water, did not work properly and had too many inmates using them at one time (i.e. seven [7] to thirteen [13] inmates used a six [6] man shower all at the same time). 41. The inmates were not required to shower, therefore, some did not creating further risk of the development and/or spread of infection(s). 42. Inmates could usually take only one shower per day. 43. After recreational activities, inmates had to remain sweaty and dirty until, and if, the guards allowed them to shower. 44. Even if permitted to shower, inmates often did not have enough soap to shower properly. 45. Once, after a flood had occurred in the prison, inmates were unable to shower for about a week. 46. Inmates were not always allowed to shower on time, and showers were often limited in time to about five (5) minutes per inmate. 47. Many inmates were refused showers for various reasons, such as when corrections officers would wrongly claim that an inmate had already showered, when there were alleged emergencies in other areas of the prison, and sometimes for no reason at all. 48. When inmates pressed the issue of wanting to shower, they faced being written up and taken to lock down (the "Hole") by the guards or commanding officer. 49. Many inmates were afraid to use the toilets because of the unsanitary conditions. 50. Many toilets leaked. 51. Due to overcrowding, thirty (30) inmates at a time, sleeping on the floor in plastic

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 11 of 22
"boats", were housed in the "Gym" with access to only one (1) toilet and two (2) showers, and eight (8) inmates were in one (1) cell with one (1) toilet and one (1) small sink.
52. It was common practice to have overcrowded cells with inmates sleeping on dirty floors on mattresses, in plastic "boats" or simply on the floor.
53. Inmates were made to sleep on the floor for extended periods of time. 54. Many inmates slept on the floor next to toilets with feces rings. 55. The general population and medical cells were dirty and had severe mold and mildew issues. 56. The cells were rarely cleaned and had holes, open concrete, paint peeling, cables and bare wires hanging and/or sticking out, and spit and other unhealthy things on the surfaces. 57. Basically, the cells were filthy and coming apart. 58. Inmates requesting to clean their cells were usually denied or ignored altogether. 59. When given time to clean their cells, inmates used a mop and dirty water that had been passed from cell to cell and left a foul odor. 60. Any supplies given to the inmates for cleaning were limited, heavily diluted with water and ran out. 61. Cells were not disinfected between inmates. 62. In general population, linens and towels were usually taken weekly to be washed but were washed together with the laundry of inmates who were suffering from MRSA. 63. Changing linens, towels and washing laundry were not mandatory. 64. The inmates blankets were virtually never washed. 65. Laundry was taken to be washed weekly, but it came back wet and with the same stains as before it was washed.

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 12 of 22
66. Mattresses that had been defecated and urinated on were not cleaned or changed between inmates, and instead, were quite often left in place for the next inmate's use.
67. Several inmates were working in the kitchen when they contracted MRSA. 68. Even after the prison experienced MRSA outbreaks, many inmates remained working in the kitchen with clear MRSA symptoms. 69. Inmates found to have, or suspected of having, MRSA were usually placed in a "MRSA cell," which was any cell with other inmates who had or were suspected of having MRS A. 70. Many different cells, both in general population and medical, were used as MRSA cells. 71. MRSA cells were often in general population and very near, if not next to, cells with inmates that did not have and were not suspected of having MRSA. 72. Inmates awaiting culture results for MRSA were typically placed in MRSA cells and started on antibiotics, but they were often housed with MRSA positive inmates until their results came back. 73. When in a MRSA cell, the inmates' linens and laundry were quite often not washed at all, and they would only change their jumpsuits. 74. MRSA cells were especially filthy and effectively locked down with no visits, no recreation, no phone calls and being let out only to shower occasionally. 75. If an inmate's culture results were negative for MRSA, antibiotic treatment was often ended, and the inmate was returned to general population after being housed with MRSA infected inmates. 76. Staff at the prison would often tease or taunt infected inmates, calling them

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 13 of 22
"MRSA-naries", among other names, and acting as though they were less than human. 77. At times, inmates in MRSA cells were only able to shower every other day. 78. Sometimes inmates in MRSA cells had to use general population showers. 79. Each of the individually named defendants were aware of and responsible for the
conditions described above, and have allowed these conditions to continue. Allegations Specific to Mr. Fernandez
80. Based upon records provided by defendants on or about April 4, 2007 Mr. Fernandez notified medical staff that a finger of his right hand was swollen and painful.
81. Based upon records produced by defendants, a doctor or medical staff member wrote a physician order on April 9, 2007 directing that Mr. Fernandez be placed in isolation until further notice and to house him alone.
82. However, despite the physician'S written order, Mr. Fernandez was placed in cell on H-Tier, the "flats", with a MRSA positive inmate, where he remained for approximately four (4) days, exposed to an inmate suffering from MRSA.
83. Mr. Fernandez was given antibiotics while he was in the cell with the MRSA positive inmate ..
84. The area on Mr. Fernandez' finger was cultured and reported as positive for "heavy growth of staphylococcus aureus."
85. The cell that Mr. Fernandez occupied with the MRSA positive inmate was filthy as were the bed linens and towels that he was given to use there.
86. Based upon records provided by Defendants, on or about July 4, 2008 , and contrary to the medical notes provided, Mr. Fernandez developed a painful, swollen bump on the left side of his jaw which he reported to the medical unit staff.

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 14 of 22
87. At the time that this bump developed Mr. Fernandez was in BHU-4, known among the prison population as "The Hole," as it is the area where inmates are placed if they have been found to have committed an infraction of prison rules.
88. Mr. Fernandez asked the medical staff to leave him in the "Hole"rather than return to the dirty, unsanitary conditions that he had experienced in the H-Tier Isolation cell in April 2007.
89. The medical staff put Mr. Fernandez on antibiotics, cultured the wound on his jawline and left him in "The Hole."
90. On July 10,2008 a laboratory report on the culture came back reading positive for MRS A.
91. Based upon records provided by Defendants, Mr. Fernandez reported the discovery of a boil under his left armpit to medical staff on or about September 18, 2008.
92. Based upon records provided by Defendants, while they suspected that Mr. Fernandez had a recurrence of MRSA the medical staff prescribed Bactrim, did not culture the boil and did not isolate Mr. Fernandez.
93. During November 2008 the prison was locked down for 6 consecutive days, during which Mr. Fernandez, along with the other inmates he was housed with in the B Unit, were not permitted to shower or change their bed sheets at all.
94. Based on information and belief, Mr. Fernandez developed a boil on his right check, popped the boil, and he reported to medical staff on or about December 5, 2008.
96. Based on information and belief, Mr. Fernandez showed the popped boil to the medical staff on or about December 5,2008 at which time a nurse told him he had MRSA, did not culture the area, did not provide proper wound care, prescribed antibiotics for him and

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 15 of 22
isolated him in cell H-13 alone. 97. Mr. Fernandez remained in H-13 for approximately 3 days. 99. When he was discharged from isolation and returned to B-2, Mr. Fernandez still
did not receive proper wound care, the affected area oozed and discharged blood and pus on to his pillow when he slept, and the pillow case was not changed until he asked several times for a clean one.
100. Mr. Fernandez has grave fears about reoccurrences and infecting his loved ones with the diseases he contracted while at Northampton County Prison.
101. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff suffered the embarrassment, immense pain, bumps and scarring associated with contracting multiple cases of MRSA.
102. Plaintiff was subjected to the unsanitary conditions ofthe prison and its medical unit, including but not limited to defendants' failures to provide sufficient antibacterial soap for plaintiffs personal use, preventing him from properly cleaning himself to prevent contracting diseases such as MRSA.
103. The prison medical staff, including defendants, knew and/or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff was at risk of contracting a staph infection, but they were deliberately indifferent to this risk, failing to protect Plaintiff by housing him with a MRSA positive inmate, Mr. Rios and/or allowing Plaintiff to determine the location of proper isolation - i.e., "The Hole" - rather than assure that he was isolated and treated in a properly sanitized cell that would provide for a safe environment both for Plaintiff to heal and to prevent him from developing future MRSA outbreaks.
104. The PrimeCare Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of failing and/or refusing to generate, maintain, and/or preserve accurate medical records.

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 16 of 22
105. Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of failing and/or refusing to provide adequate and necessary medical treatment to inmates.
106. Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to adequately treat inmates who require medical care.
107. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff s medical needs and well-being, in that they knew of the substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff and they ignored that risk.
108. Defendants' actions and inactions have amounted to unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and grief.
109. Defendants' actions and inactions toward Plaintiff have caused him physical and emotional injury, and have created significant and permanent scarring.
110. Defendants have violated Plaintiff s clearly established and well-settled federal and state constitutional rights, including his right to be free from deliberate indifference to his medical needs and well-being.
111. Defendants acted with callous indifference toward Plaintiff s federal and state rights.
112. At all times during the events described above each of the Defendants, upon information and belief, were aware of and acquiesced in the acts of the other Defendants.
113. Upon information and belief, each Defendant advised, assisted, directed, and/or ratified the actions that are at issue herein.
114. Upon information and belief, each of the individual Defendants played a substantial role and provided input which affected the adverse actions against Plaintiff.
115. Defendants County, PrimeCare, Sprague, Gessner, Haskins, and Buskirk have,

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 17 of 22
with deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train, supervise and discipline personnel at the prison, and the injuries to Plaintiff were caused by, and were a foreseeable consequence of, such failures.
116. Defendants County, PrimeCare, Sprague, Gessner, Haskins, and Buskirk have, with deliberate indifference, failed to provide sanitary and humane conditions in the prison and its medical unit, and the injuries to Plaintiff were caused by, and were a foreseeable consequence of, such failures.
117. Defendants County, PrimeCare, Sprague, Gessner, Haskins, and Buskirk have, with deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train and supervise personnel at the prison concerning the proper sanitation practices to provide for the health and humane treatment of the inmates', and the injuries to Plaintiff were caused by, and were a foreseeable consequence of, such failures.
118. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Defendants have refused and/or otherwise failed to provide the recommended treatment to individuals with MRSA, including but not limited to, not providing MRSA patients with all doses of antibiotics on the required schedule, and not providing medical attention to the MRSA patients to the extent that some patients' MRSA "boils" or infections have been opened in and under unsanitary conditions by other individuals.
119. Defendants Sprague, Haskins, Gessner and Buskirk knew and/or reasonably should have known that they, the County and PrimeCare had provided inadequate training, supervision and discipline to personnel at the prison, and that this failure of training, supervision and discipline was likely to result in the constitutional violations that caused Plaintiffs injuries.
120. Plaintiffs serious injuries were a foreseeable and direct result of Defendants'

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 18 of 22
actions and inactions. 121. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Defendants have refused and/or
otherwise failed to follow the protocol recommended by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for the prevention and/or treatment of MRSA, and have routinely and continually exposed individuals with MRSA to those who do not have it, allowed filthy and unsanitary conditions to exist.
122. At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Defendants have refused and/or otherwise failed to provide clean, sanitary conditions at Northampton County Prison and thus, have created an environment in which MRSA not only exists, but has thrived to the point of becoming epidemic in proportions.
123. Defendants' conduct shocks the conscience. 124. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' wrongful actions and inactions, Plaintiff has incurred significant hardship. 125. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' wrongful actions and inactions, Plaintiff has suffered grievously and needlessly, including, without limitation, severe bodily injury, extreme pain and discomfort, and severe emotional distress. COUNT I - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - VIOLATION OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS 126. The allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are realleged herein as if fully set forth. 127. Defendants, acting under color of law, denied Plaintiff his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 128. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Plaintiff has been damaged as

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 19 of 22
alleged. COUNT II - 42 U.S.c. § 1983 - VIOLAnON OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS 129. The allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are realleged
herein as i2 fully set forth. 130. Defendants, acting under color of law, denied Plaintiff his rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
131. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Plaintiff has been damaged as alleged.
COUNT III - 42 U.S.c. § 1983 - DEFENDANT NORTHAMPTON COUNTY 132. The allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are realleged herein as if fully set forth. 133. Prior to the events described herein, Northampton County developed and maintained policies, practices and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons within the Northampton County Prison, which caused violations of Plaintiff's rights. 134. It was the policy, practice and/or custom of Northampton County to provide unsafe, inhumane and unsanitary conditions in the prison and its medical unit. 135. It was the policy, practice and/or custom of Northampton County and PrimeCare to fail to adequately treat and/or to dump inmates who required extensive and/or expensive medical care. 136. It was the policy, practice and/or custom of Northampton County to inadequately and improperly investigate and scrutinize the backgrounds of administrators and medical service

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 20 of 22
providers, including those identified herein. 137. As a result, Northampton County retained administrators and medical service
providers, including those identified herein, who have deprived the federally and state protected rights of people with whom they have come into contact, including Plaintiff.
138. This deprivation of rights was the plainly obvious consequence of the County's failure to adequately and properly investigate and scrutinize the backgrounds of administrators and medical providers.
139. It was the policy, practice and/or custom of Northampton County to inadequately and improperly investigate complaints regarding constitutional violations at the Prison (including complaints concerning inadequate medical care and inhumane prison conditions), and such violations were instead tolerated by the County.
140. It was the policy, practice and/or custom of Northampton County to inadequately supervise and train its administrators and medical providers, including those identified herein, thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of these officials.
141. Northampton County did not provide and/or require appropriate in-service training or re-training to prevent constitutional violations.
142. As a result of the above-described policies, practices and customs, administrators and medical providers of the Northampton County Prison, including those identified herein, believed that their actions would not be investigated or sanctioned, but would be tolerated.
143. The above described policies, practices and customs demonstrated a deliberate indifference on the part of the policymakers of Northampton County to the constitutional rights of persons within the Prison, and were the cause of the violations of Plaintiff's rights as alleged

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 21 of 22

herein. 144. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Plaintiff has been damaged as
alleged.

COUNT IV - CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 13

145. The allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are realleged

herein as if fully set forth.

146. Defendants have denied Plaintiff his rights under Article I, Section 13 of the

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including his right to be free from the

infliction of cruel punishment.

147. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Plaintiff has been damaged as

alleged.

REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court find and determine, after trial by jury as

appropriate, that the Plaintiff has suffered substantial and continuing injury as a result of

deprivation of his civil and Constitutional rights, and otherwise wrongful conduct, and award the

following relief, as appropriate:

a. Declaratory relief;

b. Injunctive relief to eradicate ongoing constitutional violations;

c. Compensatory damages;

d. Prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs;

e. Punitive damages as appropriate;

f.

Such other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 1 Filed 01/22/09 Page 22 of 22

Date: January 19, 2009

Respectfully submitted,
GERALD 1. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 36418 WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY One Penn Center at Suburban Station Bldg. 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Ste 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1819 Telephone: 215-557-0099 Facsimile: 215.557.0673 Email: gwilliams@wcblegal.com

 Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 35 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANTHONY FERNANDEZ
vs. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

:

:

NO. 09-CV-00320

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This 18th day of March, 2010, it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court , it is

ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court

Copies to:

BY:/s/ Marcie L. Silfies Marcie L. Silfies Deputy Clerk

THOMAS E. BRENNER teb@goldbergkatzman.com,bjs@goldbergkatzman.com,rmm@goldbergkatzman.com,ma e@goldbergkatzman.com
TIMOTHY JAMES KEPNER tkepner@chescolaw.com,rwarmiak@chescolaw.com
DAVID J. MACMAIN dmacmain@chescolaw.com,tfitzgerald@chescolaw.com
JOSEPH M. SEMBROT jms@goldbergkatzman.com
GERALD J. WILLIAMS rpatience@wcblegal.com

 Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANTHONY FERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., DR. WILLIAM SPRAGUE, VICTORIA GESSNER, M.D., TODD HASKINS, RN, CCHP, TODD BUSKIRK,
Defendants.

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

NO. 09-CV-320

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

:

:

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY AND TODD BUSKIRK
TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendants, Northampton County and Todd Buskirk (individually and in his capacity as

Director of Corrections for Northampton County Prison) (hereinafter collectively referred to as

“Answering Defendants”), hereby answer the Complaint of Plaintiff Anthony Fernandez

(“Plaintiff”) as follows, denying each and every averment except as expressly admitted below:

1. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s

prison records, Plaintiff was incarcerated on or about December 31, 2006 and remains so at

present. The remainder of this averment is denied in that Plaintiff was at all relevant times

responsible for maintaining his own personal hygiene. To that end, Plaintiff was at all relevant

times provided by the prison with reasonable access to shower facilities, soap, clean towels,

clothing and bed linens, as well as cleaning supplies for his cell area.

2. Admitted.

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 2 of 16
3-6. The averments of paragraphs 3-6 are directed to parties other than the Answering Defendants; accordingly no response is required.
7. Admitted. 8. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response to this averment is deemed necessary, the averment is denied. 9. Admitted. 10-11. Denied 12. Denied. By way of further response, individuals incarcerated at Northampton County Prison have, from time to time, exhibited symptoms of MRSA infection. However, the prison has acted reasonably to promptly diagnose and treat inmates exhibiting symptoms of MRSA infection and to prevent spread of the infection to other inmates. 13. Denied as stated. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) has stated the following concerning MRSA: “MRSA infections that occur in otherwise healthy people who have not been recently (within the past year) hospitalized or had a medical procedure (such as dialysis, surgery, catheters) are known as community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections. These infections are usually skin infections, such as abscesses, boils, and other pusfilled lesions.” The CDC has further stated that “[i]n the outbreaks of MRSA, the environment has not played a significant role in the transmission of MRSA. MRSA is transmitted most frequently by direct skin-to-skin contact. You can protect yourself from infections by practicing good hygiene (e.g., keeping your hands clean by washing with soap and water or using an alcohol-based hand rub and showering after working out); covering any open skin area such as abrasions or cuts with a clean dry bandage; avoiding sharing personal items such as towels or razors; using a barrier (e.g., clothing or a towel) between your skin and shared equipment; and
2

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 3 of 16
wiping surfaces of equipment before and after use.” 14. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that MRSA infection can
present as a pimple or boil on the skin. By way of further response, individuals may be colonized in the nose or on the skin with MRSA for years and not develop an active skin infection. According to the CDC, “[a]pproximately 25% to 30% of the population is colonized (when bacteria are present, but not causing an infection) in the nose with staph bacteria.”
15. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that the drainage of skin boils or abscesses may require medical attention.
16. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that MRSA infection can cause scarring in some cases; however, whether and to what extent scarring occurs varies from individual to individual and infection to infection.
17. Admitted. 18. Admitted. By way of further response, the first factor identified by the CDC as being associated with MRSA infection is “close skin-to-skin contact.” In addition, according to the CDC the first thing an individual should do to prevent MRSA infection is to practice good personal hygiene by keeping his or her hands clean and washing them thoroughly. 19-21. Denied. By way of further response, inmates are responsible for cleaning their cells every day and can be sanctioned for failing to pass daily cell inspections. 22-23. Denied. 24. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that there have been leaks, from time to time at the prison, but they were repaired and did not leave “holes in the walls.” By way of further response, meals at the prison are certified by a dietician to exceed the minimum caloric intakes provided by the American Correctional Association. Answering Defendants note
3

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 4 of 16
that it appears Plaintiff has included two distinct allegations in allegation No. 24. 25-29. Denied. 30. Denied. By way of further response, the prison has an ongoing weekly service
contract with a pest-control service to protect against the possibility of insect infestation. 31. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that there was on one
occasion, a backup in the kitchen area of the prison. Professionals were called in, the backup was treated, eliminated, and the area was cleaned and disinfected before inmates were again granted access to the affected area. The remainder of this averment is denied.
32-34. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that there was a leak in the ceiling of the cafeteria. Upon information and belief, the leak emanated from a shower drain above the cafeteria. The floor and drain in the shower area were repaired and the affected ceiling tiles in the cafeteria were replaced. The remainders of these averments are denied.
35. Denied. By way of further response, shower areas are cleaned on at least a daily basis.
36-40. Denied. 41. Denied. Pursuant to prison hygiene policy, inmates are afforded the opportunity to shower every day, with the exception of inmates housed in the segregation units. 42. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that the prison cannot guarantee individual inmates access to showers more than once a day. By way of further response, the prison makes reasonable efforts to accommodate inmate requests for additional showers. 43. Denied. By way of further response, inmates elect the time of their daily showers, and usually wait until after performing recreational activities to do so.
4

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 5 of 16
44. Denied. 45. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment; accordingly, it is denied. 46. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that inmate demands to use the showers cannot always be immediately met, because there are fewer showers than inmates at the prison and the guards must maintain order and security. By way of further response, inmate showers are not timed, but generally average 10 to 15 minutes. The remainder of this averment is denied. 47-48. Denied. 49. Denied. By way of further response, inmates are provided with cleaning supplies for their cells and are responsible for maintaining the sanitary condition of their toilets and sinks. 50. Denied. By way of further response, if a toilet leaks, it is repaired. 51. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that due to unavoidable prison overcrowding, approximately 20 inmates once were temporarily housed in the “gym” area of the prison. These inmates were provided with plastic beds, which some of them turned upside down for increased privacy, as well as mattresses and linens. The remainder of this averment is denied. 52-53. Denied. 54. Denied. By way of further response, inmates are provided with cleaning supplies for their cells and are responsible for maintaining the sanitary condition of their toilets and sinks. 55-57. Denied. By way of further response, inmates are provided with cleaning supplies for their cells and are responsible for maintaining the sanitary condition of their cell areas. 58. Denied.
5

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 6 of 16
59. Denied. By way of further response, inmates are given ready access to mop sinks where they can refill their mop buckets with clean water, soap and bleach.
60-61. Denied. 62. Denied. By way of further response, inmates are responsible for placing their linens and towels in laundry bags with personal identifiers. Once an inmate’s linens and towels are washed and dried, they are returned to his cell. 63. Admitted in part, denied in part. Inmates are responsible for placing their linens and towels in laundry bags with personal identifiers. If an inmate fails to submit his linens and towels for washing with appropriate frequency he can and will be forced to do so. 64-65. Denied. 66. Denied. Mattresses are disinfected between inmates. 67. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Accordingly, it is denied. 68. Defendants specifically deny Plaintiff’s characterization of MRSA “outbreaks” at the prison. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of this averment. Accordingly, it is denied. 69. Denied as stated. By way of further response, inmates suspected of having a MRSA infection are placed in a Medical Determined Isolation Cell, and attempts are made to house these inmates alone until test results confirm or deny suspicion of MRSA infection. 70-71. Denied. 72. Admitted in part, denied in part. Each inmate who displays signs of a potential staph infection, MRSA or otherwise, receives individualized medical treatment from a licensed
6

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 7 of 16
professional. 73. Denied. 74. Denied. By way of further response, inmates are provided with cleaning supplies
for their cells and are responsible for maintaining the sanitary condition of their cell areas. Inmates with confirmed MRSA infections are segregated in Medical Determined Isolation Cells in order to protect the general population from infection. Each inmate who displays signs of a potential staph infection, MRSA or otherwise, receives individualized medical treatment from a licensed professional.
75. Denied. Each inmate who displays signs of a potential staph infection, MRSA or otherwise, receives individualized medical treatment from a licensed professional.
76-78. Denied. 79. This averment constitutes a conclusion of law as to which no response is required. To the extent that a response to this averment is deemed necessary, the averment is denied. 80. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s prison records, on or about April 4, 2007 medical staff examined Plaintiff and noted that Plaintiff had a one-week old swollen and painful area on his 2nd finger on his right hand. 81. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s prison records, on or about April 9, 2007, medical staff wrote an order pertaining to Plaintiff, and that the order included the phrases “isolation until further notice” and “house alone.” 82. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s prison records, on or about April 9, 2007 Plaintiff was placed in medical isolation in a Special Needs cell, and that on or about April 10, 2007 Plaintiff was placed in another cell until on or about April 13, 2008. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without
7

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 8 of 16
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of this averment. Accordingly, it is denied.
83. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s prison records, medical staff examined Plaintiff on or about April 4, 2007 and prescribed Bactrim, and medical staff examined Plaintiff on or about April 9, 2007, prescribed Doxycycline, took a culture, and placed Plaintiff in medical isolation.
84. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s prison records, on or about April 9, 2007 medical staff examined Plaintiff, took a culture, and a culture for Plaintiff dated April 12, 2007 came back positive.
85-86. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. Accordingly, they are denied.
87. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s prison records, on or about June 26, 2008 Plaintiff was housed in BHU-4 for disciplinary segregation until on or about July 17, 2008. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of this averment. Accordingly, it is denied.
88. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Accordingly, it is denied.
89. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s prison records, on or about July 11, 2008 medical staff examined Plaintiff, noted a healed wound on his cheek, continued Plaintiff’s antibiotic treatment, and continued his medical isolation.
90. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s
8

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 9 of 16
prison records, a culture for Plaintiff dated July 10, 2008 came back positive. 91. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s
prison records, on or about September 18, 2008 medical staff examined Plaintiff, noted a small closed boil under Plaintiff’s left arm, and prescribed Clindamycin.
92. Denied. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s prison records, on or about September 18, 2008 medical staff examined Plaintiff, and prescribed Clindamycin. By way of further response, according to Plaintiff’s prison records, on or about September 25, 2008, medical staff examined Plaintiff, and noted that his wound had resolved.
93. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Accordingly, it is denied.
94. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s prison records, on or about December 10, 2008 medical staff examined Plaintiff, noted that Plaintiff had a wound on his face for three weeks, Plaintiff popped that day, and nothing was draining from the wound. By way of further response, according to Plaintiff’s prison records, on or about December 10, 2008 medical staff prescribed Bactrim and Clindamycin for Plaintiff.
96. Denied. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s prison records, on or about December 10, 2008 medical staff prescribed Bactrim and Clindamycin for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was moved to cell H-12. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of this averment. Accordingly, it is denied. By way of further response, Answering Defendants note that Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no allegation numbered 95.
97. Denied. It is admitted only that according to Plaintiff’s prison records, Plaintiff was housed in cell H-12 for approximately 2 days.
9

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 10 of 16

99. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Accordingly, it is denied. By way of further response, Answering Defendants note that Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no allegation numbered 98.
100. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Accordingly, it is denied.
101-125. These averments constitute conclusions of law as to which no response is required. To the extent that responses to these averments are deemed necessary, the averments are denied.

COUNT I – ALLEGED VIOLATION OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

126. The responses of all the preceding paragraphs of this Answer are realleged herein

as if fully set forth.

127-28.

These averments constitute conclusions of law as to which no response is

required. To the extent that responses to these averments are deemed necessary, the averments

are denied.

WHEREFORE, Defendants Northampton County and Todd Buskirk respectfully request

that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with costs,

disbursements, attorneys fees under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any further relief deemed

appropriate by this Court.

COUNT II – ALLEGED VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS 129. The responses of all the preceding paragraphs of this Answer are realleged herein
as if fully set forth.

10

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 11 of 16

130-31.

These averments constitute conclusions of law as to which no response is

required. To the extent that responses to these averments are deemed necessary, the averments

are denied.

WHEREFORE, Defendants Northampton County and Todd Buskirk respectfully request

that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with costs,

disbursements, attorneys fees under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any further relief deemed

appropriate by this Court.

COUNT III – DEFENDANT NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

132. The responses of all the preceding paragraphs of this Answer are realleged herein

as if fully set forth.

133-44.

These averments constitute conclusions of law as to which no response is

required. To the extent that responses to these averments are deemed necessary, the averments

are denied. By way of further response, Northampton County never developed or maintained a

policy, practice or custom exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of

Plaintiff or any other persons within the Northampton County Prison. Nor has Northampton

County caused violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

WHEREFORE, Defendants Northampton County and Todd Buskirk respectfully request

that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with costs,

disbursements, attorneys fees under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any further relief deemed

appropriate by this Court.

COUNT IV – ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ARTICLE I, SECTION 13
145. The responses of all the preceding paragraphs of this Answer are realleged herein

11

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 12 of 16

as if fully set forth.

146-47.

These averments constitute conclusions of law as to which no response is

required. To the extent that responses to these averments are deemed necessary, the averments

are denied.

WHEREFORE, Defendants Northampton County and Todd Buskirk respectfully request

that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with costs,

disbursements, attorneys fees under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any further relief deemed

appropriate by this Court.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendants reserve the right to assert any and all applicable defenses to Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants have not yet obtained discovery from Plaintiff in connection with this action, and therefore, reserve the right to amend or otherwise supplement this pleading on that basis. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, without regard to whether the defenses set forth below are affirmative defenses within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c), and without conceding that any such defense must be set forth in this Answer, Defendants state as follows:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth a claim, in whole or in part, against Northampton County or Todd Buskirk upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff assumed the risk of harm by his own conduct.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any injury or damage sustained by Plaintiff was a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff’s conduct and/or the conduct of unrelated third parties.

12

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 13 of 16
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part, or otherwise subject to reduction by reason of Plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No act or failure to act on the part of Northampton County or Todd Buskirk, or any other Northampton County employee or agent, violated any of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Northampton County and Todd Buskirk are immune from all or part of the claims set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was afforded all of the rights, privileges and immunities granted pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff suffered no injury or damages as a result of any acts or omissions by Defendants.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At no time material hereto did Northampton County or Todd Buskirk, or any Northampton County employee or agent act in bad faith or wantonly, recklessly, or maliciously, or with a disregard for Plaintiff’s health, safety and welfare.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times material hereto, the actions of Northampton County and Todd Buskirk were appropriate under the circumstances and based upon a reasonable good-faith belief that they were justified under the law.
13

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 14 of 16
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times material hereto, the actions of Northampton County and Todd Buskirk were reasonable and justified under the circumstances.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Merely negligent or careless conduct on the part of a Northampton County employee or agent is insufficient to maintain a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part, or otherwise subject to reduction by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8501 et seq.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff lacks standing to assert claims for declaratory or injunctive relief against the defendants.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
14

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 15 of 16
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent Plaintiff’s Complaint can be construed to seek punitive damages against Defendants, Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages are limited and/or barred by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the Fourteenth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Northampton County and Todd Buskirk respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, together with costs, disbursements, attorneys fees under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §1988 and any further relief deemed appropriate by this Court.

Dated: May13, 2009

/s/ David J. MacMain David J. MacMain (I.D. No. 59320) Macavan Baird (I.D. No. 204130) MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP 123 S. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 (215) 772-1500
Attorneys for Defendants Northampton County and Todd Buskirk

15

Case 5:09-cv-00320-TMG Document 23 Filed 05/13/09 Page 16 of 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, David J. MacMain, hereby certify that on this 13th day of May 2009, I caused the
foregoing Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Defendants Northampton County and Todd
Buskirk to Plaintiff’s Complaint to be served upon the following via the ECF system of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
Gerald J. Williams Williams Cuker & Berezofsky One Penn Center at Suburban Station Building 1617 J.F.K. Blvd., Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1895 Tel: (215)-557-0099 gwilliams@wcblegal.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Thomas E. Brenner Goldberg, Katzman, P.C. 320 E. Market St. Strawberry Square, PO Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Tel: (717) 234-4161 Fax: (717) 234-6810 teb@goldbergkatzman.com
Attorneys for Defendants Primecare Medical, Inc., Dr. Sprague, and Todd Haskins
This Certificate of Service and the said filing are intended to be available for viewing and
downloading from the ECF system of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
/s/ David J. MacMain David J. MacMain

 Case: 5:09-cv-00320 As of: 04/09/2012 12:48 PM EDT 1 of 5
CLOSED,A/R,MEMBERCASE,STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:09−cv−00320−TMG

FERNANDEZ v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY et al Assigned to: HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/22/2009 Date Terminated: 03/18/2010 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 555 Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question

ANTHONY FERNANDEZ

represented by GERALD J. WILLIAMS WILLIAMS CUKER &BEREZOFSKY 1515 MARKET ST STE 1300 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−557−0099 Email: rpatience@wcblegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
Defendant PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC.

represented by DAVID J. MACMAIN LAMB MCERLANE PC 24 EAST MARKET ST BOX 565 WEST CHESTER, PA 19381−0565 610−430−8000 Fax: 610−692−0877 Email: dmacmain@lambmcerlane.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MACAVAN A. BAIRD DRINKER BIDDLE &REATH LLP ONE LOGAN SQUARE 18TH &CHERRY STS PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−988−3358 Email: Macavan.Baird@dbr.com TERMINATED: 06/15/2009
TIMOTHY JAMES KEPNER WILLIAM J. FERREN &ASSOCIATES 1500 MARKET ST STE 2920 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 267−675−3016 Email: tkepner@travelers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOSEPH M. SEMBROT GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C. 320 MARKET STREET STRAWBERRY SQUARE, P.O. BOX 1268 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 717−234−4161 Email: jms@goldbergkatzman.com

Case: 5:09-cv-00320 As of: 04/09/2012 12:48 PM EDT 2 of 5

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

THOMAS E. BRENNER GOLDBERG, KATZMAN P.C. 320 E. MARKET STREET STRAWBERRY SQUARE, P.O. BOX 1268 HARRISBURG, PA 17108−1268 717−234−4161 Fax: 717−234−6810 Email: teb@goldbergkatzman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DR. WILLIAM SPRAGUE TERMINATED: 03/31/2009

represented by THOMAS E. BRENNER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009

Defendant
VICTORIA GESSNER, M.D. TERMINATED: 03/31/2009

represented by JOSEPH M. SEMBROT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009

THOMAS E. BRENNER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009

Defendant
TODD HASKINS, RN, CCHP, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS DIRECTOR, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PRISON TERMINATED: 03/31/2009

represented by JOSEPH M. SEMBROT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009
THOMAS E. BRENNER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009

Defendant
TODD BUSKIRK INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PRISON TERMINATED: 03/31/2009

represented by DAVID J. MACMAIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY
MACAVAN A. BAIRD (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/2009

Date Filed 01/22/2009 01/22/2009
01/22/2009 01/29/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 954422.), filed by ANTHONY FERNANDEZ.(ks, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2012: # 1 designation form) (gs, ). (Entered: 01/23/2009)
6 Summonses Issued as to NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC., WILLIAM SPRAGUE, VICTORIA GESSNER, MD, TODD HASKINS, RN, TODD BUSKIRK. Forwarded To: Counsel on 1/23/09 (ks, ) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by ANTHONY FERNANDEZ. (ks, ) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by DAVID J. MACMAIN on behalf of NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, TODD BUSKIRK with Jury Demand and

Case: 5:09-cv-00320 As of: 04/09/2012 12:48 PM EDT 3 of 5

01/29/2009 01/29/2009 02/02/2009 02/02/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/17/2009 02/18/2009 03/03/2009 03/19/2009 03/23/2009
03/27/2009

Certificate of Service(MACMAIN, DAVID) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by MACAVAN A. BAIRD on behalf of NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, TODD BUSKIRK with Jury Demand and Certificate of Service(BAIRD, MACAVAN) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
4 CONSOLIDATED DISCOVERY SCHEDULING ORDER THAT ALL FACT DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 3/30/2009. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 1/29/09. 2/2/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
5 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN re: An In Person Settlement Conference was held on 2/2/09 and was not placed on the record. (ky, ) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
6 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT/STATUS CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 2/17/2009 AT 10:00 A.M. BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN ON 2/2/09. 2/3/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(ky, ) (ky, ). (Entered: 02/03/2009)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by THOMAS E. BRENNER on behalf of PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC., VICTORIA GESSNER, MD, TODD HASKINS, RN (BRENNER, THOMAS) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
8 Statement Disclosure Statement by PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC., VICTORIA GESSNER, MD, TODD HASKINS, RN. (BRENNER, THOMAS) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by JOSEPH M. SEMBROT on behalf of PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC., VICTORIA GESSNER, MD, TODD HASKINS, RN (SEMBROT, JOSEPH) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
11 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN re: A Telephonic Settlement Conference was held on 2/17/09 and was not placed on the record. (ky, ) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by ANTHONY FERNANDEZ. PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC. waiver sent on 2/5/2009, answer due 4/6/2009; VICTORIA GESSNER, MD waiver sent on 2/5/2009, answer due 4/6/2009; TODD HASKINS, RN waiver sent on 2/5/2009, answer due 4/6/2009. (WILLIAMS, GERALD) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by THOMAS E. BRENNER on behalf of WILLIAM SPRAGUE (BRENNER, THOMAS) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN: a Telephonic Settlement Conference held on 3/19/09. Court Reporter: None. (er, ) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
14 ORDER THAT DISCOVERY DISPUTES IN THE ABOVE−CAPTIONED MATTERS ARE HEREBY REFERRED TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IF DISCOVERY DISPUTES CANNOT BE AMICABLY RESOLVED, OR IF ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS OR OTHER DISCOVERY IS REQUIRED, SUCH DISPUTES OR REQUESTS SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE PERKIN BY LETTER OR OTHER INFORMAL MEANS, OR BY SUCH OTHER MEANS AS DIRECTED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE PERKIN. ANY PARTY CONTENDING THAT THE ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS OR CONTRARY TO LAW MAY FILE A PETITION TO RECONSIDER, TOGETHER WITH A PROPOSED ORDER, DIRECTED TO THE UNDERSIGNED, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §636(B)(1)(A). SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 3/19/09. 3/24/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(mas, ) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
15 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by ANTHONY FERNANDEZ. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY waiver sent on 3/18/2009, answer due 5/18/2009.

Case: 5:09-cv-00320 As of: 04/09/2012 12:48 PM EDT 4 of 5

03/27/2009 03/30/2009 03/31/2009 04/02/2009 04/09/2009 04/09/2009 04/23/2009
05/13/2009 05/19/2009 06/15/2009 06/24/2009 06/26/2009

(WILLIAMS, GERALD) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
16 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by ANTHONY FERNANDEZ. TODD BUSKIRK waiver sent on 3/18/2009, answer due 5/18/2009. (WILLIAMS, GERALD) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
17 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 4/9/2009 AT 10:00 A.M. BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN ON 3/30/09. 3/30/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND SERVED BY CHAMBERS. (ky, ) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
18 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Individual Defendants by PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC., WILLIAM SPRAGUE, VICTORIA GESSNER, MD, TODD HASKINS, RN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(BRENNER, THOMAS) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
19 ORDER THAT BASED ON THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, DEFENDANTS DR. VICTORIA GESSNER, DR. WILLIAM SPRAGUE, TODD HASKINS, AND TODD BUSKIRK ARE DISMISSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 4/1/09. 4/2/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(ky, ) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
20 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN re: A Telephonic Non−Final Pretrial Conference (Discovery) was held on 4/9/09 and was placed on the record. (ky, ) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
21 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MARCH 27, 2009 LETTER MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANTS NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PRISON AND TODD BUSKIRK IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN ON 4/9/09. 4/14/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED. (ky, ) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
22 ORDER THAT THE COURT'S ORDER OF 1/9/09 CONSOLIDATING CA07−3514, CA07−4341, CA07−4414, CA08−397, CA08−463, CA08−464, CA08−699, CA08−701, CA08−943, CA08−944, CA08−1285, CA08−2167, CA08−2168, CA08−2179, CA08−3142, CA08−3291, CA08−3292, CA08−3628, CA08−4296, CA08−4327, CA08−4677, CA08−4708, CA08−4732, CA08−5947, AND CA08−5948 BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY ONLY SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT AT THE PRESENT TIME; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT CA09−019, CA09−020, CA09−107, CA09−320, CA09−949, CA09−950, CA09−951, AND CA09−952 ARE ALSO CONSOLIDATED WITH THESE TWENTY−SIX CASES BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY ONLY. 4/24/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, ) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
23 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, TODD BUSKIRK.(MACMAIN, DAVID) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by TIMOTHY JAMES KEPNER on behalf of NORTHAMPTON COUNTY (KEPNER, TIMOTHY) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
25 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by MACAVAN A. BAIRD on behalf of NORTHAMPTON COUNTY(BAIRD, MACAVAN) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
26 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN re: A Telephonic Settlement Conference was held on 6/24/09 and was not placed on the record. (ky, ) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
27 ORDER ORDER THAT AN IN PERSON SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN THE ABOVE−CAPTIONED CASE WILL BE HELD ON FRIDAY, JULY 10, 2009, AT 10:00 A.M. BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, AND THE HONORABLE HENRY S. PERKIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, IN SUITE 4401, UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL BUILDING, 504 WEST HAMILTON STREET, ALLENTOWN, PA. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE

Case: 5:09-cv-00320 As of: 04/09/2012 12:48 PM EDT 5 of 5

07/01/2009 07/10/2009 07/29/2009 11/25/2009 01/19/2010
03/02/2010 03/03/2010 03/18/2010

JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN ON 6/25/09. 6/30/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED. (er, ) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
28 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN: a Telephonic Settlement Conference held on 7/1/09. Court Reporter: None. (er, ) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN re: An In Person Settlement Conference was held on 7/10/09 and was not placed on the record. (ky, ) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
30 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN re: A Telephonic Settlement Conference was held on 7/29/09 and was not placed on the record. (ky, ) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
31 ORDER THAT EACH CASE SHALL PROCEED TO TRIAL OR DISPOSTIVE MOTION STAGE ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE SET BY THE INDIVIDUAL JUDGE TO WHOM EACH CASE IS ASSIGNED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 11/25/09. 12/1/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(mas, ) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
32 ORDER THAT ALL MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THESE ACTIONS SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE MARCH 15, 2010. THE PARTIES SHALL HAVE THIRTY (30) DAYS TO FILE RESPONSES TO ANY MOTIONS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS SHALL EACH FILE A CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF APPLICABLE LAW, WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTEEN (15) PAGES, WHICH PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF THE LAW PERTINENT TO ALL CASES. IF COUNSEL WISH, THEY MAY FILE ONE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTIONS, AND AN ADDITIONAL CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPONSES TO THE OPPOSING PARTIES MOTIONS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT INDIVIDUALIZED MOTIONS AND RESPONSES SHALL APPLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF EACH SPECIFIC PLAINTIFF TO THE APPLICABLE LAW, BUT SHOULD NOT CONTAIN A SUMMARY OF THE LAW. SAID MOTIONS AND RESPONSES SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTEEN (15) PAGES. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE, THE PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT STATEMENTS OF STIPULATED FACTS WHEN POSSIBLE. THERE IS NO PAGE LIMITATION ON STATEMENTS OF STIPULATED FACTS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT SHOULD SPECIFIC CASES REQUIRE ADDITIONAL BRIEFING, THE PARTIES MUST MOVE FOR LEAVE OF COURT BEFORE FILING ADDITIONAL MATERIAL. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 1/14/10. 1/20/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(mas, ) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
33 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC..(BRENNER, THOMAS) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
34 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC..Brief. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M)(BRENNER, THOMAS) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
35 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 41.1(b). SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 03/18/2010. 03/18/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(mls, ) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

Output: Plaintiff, a county jail inmate who suffered scarring and isolation from multiple MRSA infections was successful in obtaining a settlement against county defendants for their alleged failure to implement appropriate quarantine protocols and correct medical care, and for maintaining unsanitary conditions at the jail.