Dorsey v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) et al
Filing
55
MEMORANDUM re. Mtns for summary jgmnt #9 , #16 , #40 and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS #51 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 1/4/17. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TARA DORSEY
Plaintiff,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:16-cv-0588
Judge Sylvia H. Rambo
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is a Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate
Judge in which he recommends that Plaintiff Dorsey’s complaint filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed because the action is time barred under the statute
of limitations. (Doc. 51.) Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 52-53) and Defendants filed a joint response. (Doc. 54.)
I.
Background
Plaintiff was an inmate at SCI-Muncy and SCI-Cambridge Springs. (Doc.
49, ¶¶ 5, 14.) Prior to incarceration, she experienced complex regional pain
syndrome and had a spinal cord stimulator implanted. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.) While in
prison, she suffered an injury which exacerbated her pain. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
On December 4, 2012, Plaintiff was seen by a neurosurgeon, Dr. William
Diefenbach, who concluded that her pain was caused by a defective stimulator
device and recommended its removal. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-19.) In April 2013, a
representative of the medical device manufacturer also advised Plaintiff of the
possibility of nerve damage due to the positioning of the device in her back. (Id. at
¶¶ 21-22.) In September 2013, medical personnel at SCI-Muncy informed Plaintiff
that her scheduled surgery would be cancelled as the operation was too costly. (Id.
at ¶ 25.)
II.
Argument
The Magistrate Judge opined that through Plaintiff’s own declaration (Doc.
49), she was aware of her injury and its purported cause between December 2012
and September 2013, but did not file this action until April 8, 2016. (Doc. 51, p.
21.) The Magistrate Judge held that neither the discovery rule nor the continuing
violation doctrine are equitable exceptions to the timely filing requirement. (Doc.
51, pp. 15-16.) Plaintiff appears to argue that until the medical device was
removed, and proven to have been the cause of her pain, her cause of action did not
accrue. (See Doc. 53.) This position would turn on its head the applicable legal
precedent of equitable tolling.
Numerous cases cited by the Magistrate Judge supports the principle that the
period runs from the time Plaintiff reasonably should have known that Defendants
were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical need, and not from the time the
full extent of the precise medical cause of the injury was known. (Doc. 51, pp. 1718.)
2
It is clear from the record that Plaintiff became aware of her injury at least
between December 2012 and September 2013, at which point she was informed by
prison officials that her operation would not be performed. At that point, she wrote
to the Superintendent of the institution and other department heads about her pain
and the failure of the Department of Corrections to provide medical treatment.
(Doc. 49, ¶ 25.)
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the Report and Recommendation will be
adopted.
s/Sylvia Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: January 4, 2017
3
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?