Hilton v. Wright
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5012
2d Cir.2012Background
- Hilton, a Hepatitis C patient, was denied antiviral treatment by DOCS during 2003–2004 due to a Program Requirement tied to substance abuse programs.
- DOCS staff recommended treatment in 2005; Wright refused citing ineligibility under DOCS guidelines he promulgated.
- Hilton filed a Section 1983 suit alleging deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment and ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims.
- Settlement negotiations led to a 2007 interim and 2008 final Settlement Agreement eliminating the Program Requirement and monitoring costs for two years.
- The Settlement allowed class counsel to monitor implementation and recover up to $20,000 in fees, with potential upward adjustment; Hilton sought additional out-of-pocket costs and fee reimbursement.
- The district court granted summary judgment on damages against Wright/DOCS and denied certain monitoring-related costs; on appeal, issues included whether the district court adequately explained summary judgment and whether costs were correctly interpreted under the Settlement Agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Wright is entitled to qualified immunity and whether his conduct violated the Eighth Amendment. | Hilton asserts deliberate indifference by Wright. | Wright contends no constitutional violation or qualified immunity. | Remanded for fuller explanation; qualified immunity analysis guided by Pearson framework. |
| ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims against DOCS and Wright in light of ADA Amendments Act 2008. | Hilton was regarded as having an impairment due to drug use. | Pre-Amendment standard required showing being regarded as substantially limited; no evidence. | Remanded for clarification; need analysis of whether impairment perception exists and if drug addiction qualifies after amendments. |
| Whether the Settlement Agreement precludes recovery of out-of-pocket costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. | Costs should be recoverable as part of attorney’s fees under §1988. | Settlement caps and governs monitoring costs; §1988 precluded. | Remanded to determine if costs may exceed the $20,000 cap under the Agreement. |
| Waiver issue regarding Hilton's Eighth Amendment claim based on initial 2003–2004 denial. | Claim should be considered if not waived; evidence may show denial due to policy. | Waiver not clearly addressed; issue may be waived as not raised. | Remand to determine waiver status and consider the claim if not waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (revised qualified immunity framework; two-step approach may be altered by court)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (prisoner right to medical treatment; deliberate indifference standard)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (subjective recklessness standard for deliberate indifference)
- Reeves v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., 140 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 1998) (personal knowledge/awareness relevant to deliberate indifference)