Corrections_Today_January_February_2024_Vol.86_No.1

S taff in correctional settings are tasked with policies and procedures as well as state and federal laws. Of course, these policies and laws can change over time and changes must be passed down to line staff. Many times, this new information is passed on through annual training or internal communication, but this training does not commonly include actual case law. So where did these ideas and legal concepts come from and how do they get applied within the court system? The short answer is offender litigation. In 1941, the Supreme Court ruled prison officials could not interfere or intercept prisoner petitions to the judicial system (Ex Parte Hall, 1941). This ruling opened the door for the examination of how the Constitution is applied in the corrections system. 1 The 1960s and 70s brought even closer scrutiny and the specific extension of Constitutional protections to include the rights of offenders. People held in correctional settings (e.g. prison, jail, detention) have a basic right to health care and humane conditions of confinement protected by the Constitu tion. These rights do not dictate that all methodologies of health care are required, but that community standards are upheld. In essence, the care and conditions of confine ment must reflect basic common decency and dignity. Furthermore, any deprivation or removal of these basic rights (e.g. disciplinary hearing procedures) must follow procedural requirements that protect the “liberty interests” of people who are incarcerated. In this article we explore some of the seminal cases applying the Constitution, in particular the 8 th Amendment, to the provision of health care and behavioral health treatment. Constitutional mandates vs medical negligence and malpractice It is important to understand the difference between constitutionally mandated care and the standards of medical negligence or malpractice. Although each legal jurisdiction may apply slightly different judicial proceed ings or laws to litigating negligence and malpractice in the U.S., these cases typically include a complaint related to lack of due care (Gittler, 1996) and must establish: 1. The existence of a duty to the patient because of a patient-provider relationship. Within the realm of overseeing some of the most difficult situations while maintaining adherence to their own system’s

corrections, the element of duty is almost always essentially assumed due to the custodial nature of the setting. 2. A breach of that duty by failure to exercise the requisite “standard of care.” For corrections pro fessionals, this can equate to whether “reasonable care” was used. In contrast, for corrections health care professionals, this is normally examined within the realm of the community standard. 3. The breach of the standard of care caused or result ed in an injury. In examining this element, courts look to see whether it was the provider’s actions or lack of action that caused some form of injury.

In 1941, the Supreme Court ruled prison officials could not interfere or intercept prisoner petitions to the judicial system (Ex Parte Hall, 1941).

Lawsuits that come from these actions must identify the breakdown in the required elements of standard of care provided. Although the legal proceeding to estab lish the prevailing “standard of care” and the requisite cause of harm typically involve debate and expert tes timony (Gittler, 1996) some cases deviate so obviously from any general standard that they are shocking. Take for instance, the case of a doctor in New York who was sued for carving his initials into a patient’s abdomen after completing the patient’s Caesarean section (Wong, 2000). Now dubbed “Dr. Zorro” by the media (2000, CBS news), Dr. Zarkin admitted to carving his initials “A” and “Z” in 3-inch letters into the patient’s abdominal skin and announcing to others in the operating room “I did such a beautiful job, I’ll initial it.” Within the corrections setting, the Supreme Court has long held that allegations of malpractice or negligence do not automatically rise to the level of needing Constitu tional protection. In order to violate standards under the 8 th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment,

Opposite page: Background: Adobe Stock/gdarts; Statue/U.S.A. flag: Adobe Stock/Photocreo Bednarek

Corrections Today January/February 2024 — 37