Brooks v. Lynch
586, 2015
| Del. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Prisoner Alan T. Brooks, incarcerated at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, sought ultraviolet (UV) radiation therapy for vitiligo after an outside dermatologist prescribed topical treatment, vitamins, and twice-weekly UV therapy.
- DOC medical staff (Dr. Ray Lynch, Dr. Patricia Mudha, and nurse Jennifer Krafcik) denied the UV therapy; Brooks exhausted the DOC grievance process, and the grievance panel upheld the denial.
- Brooks sued in Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment (10 Del. C. § 6501) that defendants engaged in fraud/misfeasance and violated statutory and constitutional rights, and a writ of mandamus (10 Del. C. § 564) directing them to approve the UV treatments.
- The Superior Court summarily dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, construing it as asserting medical malpractice and noting the absence of an affidavit of merit and potential statute-of-limitations problems.
- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed: declaratory and mandamus relief were inappropriate, the individual defendants were not proper targets for a § 6536 claim, and malpractice-based allegations required the affidavit of merit under 18 Del. C. § 6853(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declaratory relief was appropriate to overturn DOC medical decision | Brooks argued his complaint sought a declaratory judgment to require treatment approval | Defendants relied on DOC grievance process and lack of cognizable interest to sustain decision | Court: Declaratory relief inappropriate; grievance process already adjudicated the dispute and defendants lack cognizable interest |
| Whether mandamus could compel individual defendants to provide treatment | Brooks sought mandamus to direct defendants to permit UV therapy | Defendants argued mandamus does not lie against individuals for discretionary medical decisions | Court: Mandamus improper; no clear legal right to compel non-discretionary act and defendants not proper targets |
| Whether statutory claim under 10 Del. C. § 6536 lies against individual medical staff | Brooks asserted denial was for financial reasons under § 6536(b) | Defendants/CT reasoned § 6536 duties are owed by DOC, not individuals | Court: Any obligations under § 6536 would be owed by DOC; individual defendants improper parties |
| Whether malpractice-based allegations could avoid affidavit-of-merit requirement because plaintiff is incarcerated | Brooks argued outside physician discharge instructions should satisfy affidavit-of-merit and incarceration made obtaining an expert affidavit impracticable | Defendants argued malpractice allegations require statutory affidavit of merit regardless of status | Court: Plaintiff not exempt; complaint depended on malpractice allegations and dismissal for failure to file affidavit of merit was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Gannett Co., Inc. v. Bd. of Mgrs. of DELJIS, 840 A.2d 1232 (Del. 2003) (standard of review for a trial court's exercise of discretion to hear declaratory judgment actions)
- XL Specialty Insur. Co. v. WMI Liquidiating Trust, 93 A.3d 1208 (Del. 2014) (de novo review of justiciability questions)
- Darby v. New Castle Gunning Bedford Ed. Ass'n, 336 A.2d 209 (Del. 1975) (mandamus requires clear legal right to non-discretionary duty)
- Wilmington Trust Co. v. Barron, 470 A.2d 257 (Del. 1983) (limits on appropriate use of declaratory judgment relief)
- Mason v. Board of Pension Trustees, 473 A.2d 1258 (Del. 1983) (purpose of declaratory judgment to resolve uncertainty where no other remedy exists)