Ashker v. Alameida et al
Filing
570
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS DECEMBER 10, 2013 NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS VIOLATION OF COURTS ORDER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/7/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2013)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
TODD A. ASHKER,
5
6
7
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE
PLAINTIFF’S
DECEMBER 10, 2013
NOTICE OF
DEFENDANTS’
VIOLATION OF
COURT’S ORDER
v.
MICHAEL C. SAYRE, et al.,
8
9
No. C 05-3759 CW
Defendants.
________________________________/
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Plaintiff has filed a notice of violation of the Court’s
12
February 4, 2010 Order for Specific Performance.
13
filed a response.
The matter was decided on the papers.
14
15
Defendants have
BACKGROUND
Following a five-day jury trial, on February 4, 2010, this
16
Court entered an Order for Specific Performance of the 2002
17
Settlement Agreement between the California Department of
18
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and Plaintiff.
19
required, among other things, that Defendants arrange for a
20
consultation with a pain management specialist to establish a pain
21
management regimen.
22
23
24
The order
Defendants were further ordered to
implement the specialist’s recommended pain management
regimen and continue that regimen until . . . the
specialist and the CDCR’s physician concur in the
opinion that Plaintiff’s medical needs have changed such
that the regimen should be changed or discontinued.
25
Docket. No. 434 at 13.
26
a report every three weeks indicating the status of the
27
performance of the 2002 Settlement Agreement between the CDCR and
28
Plaintiff.
Finally, Defendants were ordered to submit
1
2
Plaintiff was evaluated by a pain specialist at the UCSF Pain
Management Center.
The specialist recommended as follows:
As the patient has received excellent pain relief from
concurrent use of Ultram and Tylenol in the past, we
will recommend that the patient be weaned off of
morphine and started on Ultram 50 mg three times daily.
The patient can also use Tylenol 650 mg along with
Ultram in three times daily dosing, as long as he is
clear from a medical standpoint. Although the patient
does have a history of hepatitis C, he reports there are
no current issues with his liver.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Ashker Dec. ISO Notice of Violation, Ex. A.
9
evaluation, Defendants began providing Plaintiff with 50 mg of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Following the
Ultram and 650 mg of Tylenol three times daily.
11
On April 9, 2012, this Court entered an order in which it
12
found that Defendants had “fulfilled the requirements in the Order
13
for Specific Performance.”
14
Court ordered Defendants to submit a progress report once a year,
15
instead of once every three weeks.
16
Defendants to “inform the Court immediately of any change in the
17
medical condition of Plaintiff’s injured arm or in the treatment
18
program that [they] now provide[] to Plaintiff.”
19
at 3.
20
Docket No. 550 at 3.
Accordingly, the
However, the Court ordered
Docket No. 550
Plaintiff’s prescription for Tylenol was discontinued on
21
October 26, 2012.
22
using the prison’s Health Care Services Request Form were
23
unsuccessful, Plaintiff filed the instant notice of violation on
24
December 10, 2012.
25
After efforts to have his prescription refilled
On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff had a blood test that indicated
26
his liver function was normal.
27
On January 15, 2013, Plaintiff’s prescription for 650 mg of
28
Tylenol three times daily was renewed.
Ashker Dec. ISO Reply ¶¶ 13, 14.
2
Id. at ¶ 14.
1
DISCUSSION
2
Defendants assert that the pain management specialist’s
3
statement that Plaintiff “can also use Tylenol 650 mg along with
4
Ultram in three times daily dosing, as long as he is clear from a
5
medical standpoint” indicates that the use of Tylenol was
6
“permissive, and not a mandatory part of the recommended pain
7
management regimen.”
8
further note that the recommendation “was made in the context of
9
the potential concern for liver problems in association with Mr.
Defendants’ Response at 2.
Defendants
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Ashker’s history of hepatitis C.”
11
interprets the pain management specialist’s recommendation to
12
provide for the 650 mg of Tylenol three times daily unless there
13
is a medical reason not to do so.
14
Id.
However, the Court
Here, Defendants discontinued Plaintiff’s prescription over
15
two months before testing him to determine if there was a medical
16
reason for him to stop taking the Tylenol.
17
test revealed that any concerns about Plaintiff’s liver were
18
unfounded.
19
Moreover the blood
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants violated the
20
Court’s February 4, 2010 Order for Specific Performance.
21
addition, Defendants’ failure to inform the Court of the change to
22
Plaintiff’s treatment program was a violation of the Court’s April
23
9, 2012 Order.
24
receiving the 650 mg of Tylenol three times daily as recommended
25
by the pain management specialist and no action by the Court is
26
necessary at this time.
27
28
In
However, it appears that Plaintiff is currently
Going forward, Defendants shall continue to renew Plaintiff’s
prescription for 650 mg of Tylenol three times daily unless they
3
1
have a documented medical reason for discontinuing the drug.
2
Moreover, Defendants are reminded of the Court’s order that they
3
inform the Court immediately of any change in the medical
4
condition of Plaintiff’s injured arm or in the treatment program
5
that they provide to Plaintiff.
6
Court of the reasons for any such changes.
7
Defendants shall also inform the
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Dated: 3/7/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?