D v. Jordan v. Unit Manager Perry
325 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiff David V. Jordan, formerly incarcerated at SCI‑Forest, alleges a prior gunshot injury causes left‑leg pain and a prison doctor ordered he be assigned a bottom bunk.
- Jordan informed Unit Manager Perry and Corrections Officer Bundy of the doctor’s order and repeatedly requested a bottom‑bunk assignment.
- Prison Employees allegedly refused to place Jordan on the bottom bunk; Jordan claims continued leg pain as a result.
- Jordan sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, seeking damages (and injunctive relief later rendered moot).
- The trial court sustained the defendants’ preliminary objections (demurrer), finding the injuries de minimis and lacking intentional conduct; Jordan appealed.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded, holding Jordan’s amended complaint sufficiently pleaded deliberate indifference to survive a demurrer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jordan pleaded an Eighth Amendment deliberate‑indifference claim | Jordan: alleged defendants knew of doctor’s bottom‑bunk order, refused request, causing ongoing leg pain | Defendants: bunk assignment was an oversight/temporary (~41 days); any harm was de minimis and not intentional | Reversed: allegations that defendants knew of medical order, refused action, and caused ongoing pain were sufficient to plead deliberate indifference |
| Whether chronic pain from top‑bunk placement can constitute a "serious medical need" | Jordan: continued leg pain satisfies factors (chronic/substantial pain; affects daily activities) | Defendants: temporary nature means not serious; de minimis | Reversed: chronic/substantial pain alleged can be a serious medical need for Eighth Amendment purposes |
| Whether plaintiff’s complaint failed as a matter of law to state a claim (demurrer standard) | Jordan: facts as pled, if proven, meet the three‑part deliberate indifference test | Defendants: complaint is clearly insufficient; demurrer should be sustained | Reversed: on demurrer review, complaint not clearly insufficient; issues for factual development remain |
| Whether intentionality is required and was sufficiently alleged | Jordan: alleged deliberate refusal to follow medical order (intentional conduct) | Defendants: indifference must be intentional and here was only negligent/oversight | Reversed: complaint sufficiently alleges defendants were aware and refused to comply, satisfying intent element at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (recognizes deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as Eighth Amendment violation)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (defines "serious medical need" as denial of minimal civilized measure of life's necessities)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (context for minimal civilized measure of life's necessities)
- County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 490 A.2d 402 (Pa. 1985) (standard for sustaining a demurrer: complaint must be clearly insufficient)
- Tindell v. Department of Corrections, 87 A.3d 1029 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (factors for assessing "serious medical need" and deliberate indifference elements)