D. McKeithan v. M. Clark, Superintendent SCI Albion, Dr. M. Boggio, Medical Director
133 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 2, 2017Background
- Petitioner Dennis McKeithan, an inmate at SCI‑Albion, developed a severe rash and swelling on the right side of his face and around his right eye in Sept. 2016; a hospital diagnosed shingles and gave a topical ointment that lasted eight days and was not refilled.
- After persistent pain and rash, Petitioner repeatedly requested further care; prison medical staff largely examined him only through his cell window, never provided an eye exam, and a new prison physician (Dr. Boggio) told him nothing was wrong and there was no treatment for shingles.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on Jan. 4, 2017 seeking emergency injunctive relief for cruel and unusual conditions of confinement based on inadequate medical care and risk to his eyesight.
- The trial court ordered Respondents to show cause and to produce Petitioner for a hearing; after testimony it found treatment inadequate and ordered independent examinations by an internist and an ophthalmologist outside the prison to assess risk of permanent eye or facial nerve damage and palliative options.
- Respondents complied with the order by arranging the outside examinations and then filed this interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s finding of deliberate indifference and its authority to order outside care.
- The Commonwealth Court dismissed the appeal as moot because Respondents had already provided the ordered examinations and the public‑importance and capable‑of‑repetition exceptions to mootness did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly ordered outside medical exams and found deliberate indifference | McKeithan: prison medical care was constitutionally inadequate; risk of permanent eye/facial damage required outside in‑person exams | Respondents: they provided some treatment; trial court improperly substituted its judgment for prison physician and abused discretion | Appeal dismissed as moot; court did not reach merits of deliberate‑indifference claim because Respondents complied with order |
| Whether appeal is moot after compliance with trial court order | McKeithan: compliance does not negate need for review given ongoing injury risk (implicit) | Respondents: compliance renders controversy moot; argue exceptions may apply (capable of repetition, public interest) | Moot; neither "capable of repetition yet evading review" nor the public‑importance exception applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference requires awareness of and disregard for substantial risk)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1981) (objective standard for unconstitutional prison conditions)
- Neely v. Department of Corrections, 838 A.2d 16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (summarizes objective/subjective Eighth Amendment requirements in state context)
- Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 812 A.2d 591 (Pa. 2002) (definition and treatment of mootness in Pennsylvania)
- In re Gross, 382 A.2d 116 (Pa. 1978) (public‑importance exception to mootness is narrowly applied)