841 F. Supp. 2d 486
D. Mass.2012Background
- Plaintiff is a male-to-female transsexual in Massachusetts DOC custody alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations for refusing prescribed GID treatment.
- GID treatment per Standards of Care includes hormone therapy, real-life experience, and sex reassignment surgery; laser hair removal/electrolysis are medical treatments for feminization.
- Since 2003-2004, multiple DOC doctors prescribed laser hair removal and/or electrolysis for Plaintiff’s GID.
- Defendants allegedly refused to provide the full course of prescribed treatments, leading to depression and alleged risk of harm.
- Plaintiff filed grievances with no relief; a GID Treatment Committee allegedly determined she should not receive the prescribed treatments as of July 20, 2010.
- Defendant Lawrence Weiner replaced Terre Marshall; Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief only; several defendants have been dismissed or substituted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff’s GID constitutes a serious medical need. | Plaintiff asserts GID is a serious medical need. | Defendants contend treatment adequacy is a factual dispute for trial. | Plaintiff plausibly alleges a serious medical need. |
| Whether Defendants’ conduct shows deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s GID. | Defendants repeatedly ignored prescribed laser/electrolysis treatments. | Defendants argue treatment adequacy is a factual question for trial. | Plaintiff plausibly alleges deliberate indifference at this stage. |
| Whether Lubelczyk’s personal involvement supports §1983 claim. | Lubelczyk failed to permit prescribed treatment. | Lubelczyk’s role insufficient for liability. | Plaintiff states personal involvement; claim survives. |
| Whether Diener’s role as GID Treatment Committee chair supports liability. | Diener aware of prescriptions but denied treatments. | Care adequacy is dispositive; jury should decide. | Plaintiff plausibly alleges deliberate indifference via Diener. |
| Whether Weiner substitution affects Plaintiff’s claims and injunctive relief viability. | Weiner substituted for Marshall, with knowledge of Plaintiff’s needs. | Substitution procedural; merits remain unresolved. | Weiner properly substituted; injunctive relief claims viable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kosilek v. Maloney, 221 F.Supp.2d 156 (D. Mass. 2002) (GID treatment may constitute a serious medical need)
- Battista v. Clarke, 645 F.3d 449 (1st Cir. 2011) (deliberate indifference can be shown by denial or delay of prescribed care)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (medical care must be deliberately indifferent to violate Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (standard for deliberate indifference in confinement settings)
- Rodriguez-Ortiz v. Margo Caribe, Inc., 490 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2007) (tests for personal involvement and knowledge of medical needs)
- Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 524 F.3d 315 (1st Cir. 2008) (procedural posture guidance on evidentiary standards)