Corrections_Today_Summer_2024_Vol.86_No.2

Table 1: Lawsuits Related to MOUD Access in CJS

Case Title/Date

Case Details

Outcome

– In anticipation of a 60-day incarceration for violat ing probation, Pesce and his physician attempted to reduce his methadone dose because they expected he would undergo forced withdrawal once incarcerated at Essex County House of Corrections (ECHC) in Massachusetts. – Dose reduction was unsuccessful and caused Pesce to experience adverse withdrawal effects, hence, his physician ordered him to remain on methadone 80-100mg as medical necessity. – ECHC strictly prohibited suboxone and methadone, and required incarcerated individuals to undergo forced withdrawal under medical supervision. – Prior to incarceration, Smith was prescribed buprenorphine twice-daily as part of treatment for opioid use disorder, and once incarcerated, Smith’s physician confirmed that the prescription was necessary to maintain stable maintenance. – The Aroostook County Jail in Maine prohibits any incarcerated individuals to use MOUD, such as buprenorphine. The only time the jail has departed from this prohibition was when a pregnant woman was incarcerated to prevent fetal harm. – While incarcerated at the jail, Smith experienced painful withdrawals and suicidal ideation. – Three individuals who were maintained on metha done-maintenance programs prior to incarceration at the Cook County Jail in Illinois filed a lawsuit regarding the jail’s mandatory methadone-taper policy and moved for a class certification on behalf of former incarcerated individuals who were subject to the same policy through October 2019. – At the time of this case, the jail only provided methadone to pregnant women who were incarcer ated at the facility. – The jail uses a taper-to-zero approach that can cause serious long-term harm including relapse and fatal overdose, and induces suffering, such as anxiety, chills, muscle pain, weakness, tremor, lethargy/drowsiness, restlessness/irritability, and nausea/vomiting/diarrhea.

– A civil action (§ 1983) was brought against the Super intendent regarding the denial of access to metha done, citing violations of: • the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) • the Eighth Amendment – Pesce filed the action to seek injunctive relief requir ing ECHC to provide him with access to his prescribed methadone. – The court allowed the motion for preliminary injunction, as the court considered that Pesce has reasonable likelihood of success on the merits that Pesce receives methadone treatment while incarcerated at ECHC. – Smith was denied the continuation of her medication during her 40-day sentence, and brought forth the argument that the Sheriff violated: • the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) • the Eighth Amendment – The court granted a preliminary injunction, which is pending final adjudication and ordered that Smith be given buprenorphine while finishing the original sentence of 40 days. – Aroostook County jail has a contract with Katahdin Valley Health Center to provide healthcare services, and two workers from the center testified that the jail’s Opioid Withdrawal Protocol was in place for security reasons and made solely by the jail. The protocol has since been amended to add the word “regularly” to the statement that the jail does not “regularly use opioids or opioid replacements.” – The motion for class certification was granted by the court to include all pre-trial incarcerated individuals who entered the Cook County jail between December 23, 2013 and October 7, 2019. – The jail testified that they changed their policy in July 2017 to include an individualized approach for each incarcerated individual’s MOUD therapy. • However, the medical director of the jail testified that the jail did not keep records regarding this change, and it was not until October 7th, 2019, when the jail adopted a new written policy for opioid treatment. – The new written policy states that incarcerated in dividuals may continue the same medication and dos age from pre-incarceration while they are in custody.

Pesce v. Coppinger 58

November 11, 2018

Smith v. Aroostook County 59

March 27, 2019

Rogers et al., v. Sheriff of Cook County 60

November 29, 2020

(Chart continued on next page) →

Note: No reader of this should act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without first seeking legal advice in the relevant jurisdiction.

Summer 2024 | Corrections Today

29