Hines v. Anderson

439 F. Supp. 12, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15671
CourtDistrict Court, D. Minnesota
DecidedMay 27, 1977
Docket4-73 Civ. 387
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 439 F. Supp. 12 (Hines v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hines v. Anderson, 439 F. Supp. 12, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15671 (mnd 1977).

Opinion

ORDER AND CONSENT DECREE

LARSON, District Judge.

The Plaintiffs, having filed their complaint herein on August 7, 1973, and the Defendants having thereafter filed answers to such complaint denying the substantive allegations thereof, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, by and through their respective attorneys, having agreed to the making and entry of this order, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein, and without admission by any party in respect to any issue, and both Plaintiffs and Defendants being desirous of the entry of this order and consent decree, and the Court being satisfied that the provisions of this order and consent decree are fairly supported by facts on file in this action:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

I.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and of the parties hereto. The complaint states claims upon which relief may be granted against the Defendants under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the 8th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

II.

As used in this decree:

a. Wherever an individual Defendant is personally identified, this order and decree shall apply to him or his agents, servants, employees, representatives or successors in interest.

b. “Medical care” shall mean and include examination, diagnosis and treatment.

c. “Prison hospital” means the physical facility located within the confines of the Minnesota State Prison, Stillwater, Minnesota, whether or not presently licensed or properly referred to as a “hospital.”

d. “Prison health care facility” or “prison infirmary” means the physical facility located within the confines of the Minnesota State Prison at Stillwater, Minnesota, which was formerly licensed by the Minnesota State Board of Health as a hospital.

e. “Purely elective surgery” means, with respect to medical opinion and judgment, surgery which is not required to alleviate, correct or remedy a given problem or condition, the situation being such that an average patient might well tolerate it and fore-go surgery, e. g., resetting of an old fractured bone, which has long since healed and does not cause anything but minor discomfort.

f. “Purely cosmetic surgery” means that which is performed for the purpose of improving or beautifying the body or physical appearance or correcting a condition which presents no medical threat, e. g., removal of a birthmark or tattoo.

g. “24-hour lockup” means those situations in which an inmate is confined to a cell or cubicle for a substantial portion of the day and evening hours. “Substantial” means 18 hours or more in a 24-hour period.

h. The words “doctor” and “physician” are used interchangeably. They include individuals licensed to practice medicine in the State of Minnesota and do not include Ph.D.’s unless coupled with an M.D. They *16 do not include interns or residents unless specifically provided.

i. “Parties” means all of the Plaintiffs and all of the Defendants.

III.

The Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to a stipulation settling this case and providing for the terms and provisions of this consent decree. On the basis of said stipulation and agreement, it is hereby ordered that the claims of the Plaintiffs herein for monetary damages, both individually and on behalf of a class of defined inmates, are hereby dismissed with prejudice. This dismissal of monetary claims shall not prejudice the right of any individual unnamed member of the class, defined in IV, infra, to assert, in another proceeding or action, any claim he may have for damages as a result of any alleged medical deprivation or malpractice, recognizable in law or equity, similar to those claims raised by the Plaintiffs herein. Defendants shall not have available to them, for a reasonable time hereafter, the defense of statute of limitations, in the event any member of said class shall assert such a claim, unless such defense were available to the Defendants as of August 7, 1973. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this consent decree, and the issues addressed and provided for herein, is binding on all members of the class of inmates defined in IV, infra, and the same may not be relitigated in conjunction with the assertion of any such monetary claim.

IV.

This Court determines that the individual Plaintiffs have properly instituted this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and declares this to be a proper class action with respect to all issues of declaratory and injunctive relief and maintainable on behalf of all inmates of the Minnesota State Prison who are now or may in the future be in the need of medical care, including examination, diagnosis or treatment, while so confined.

V.

Frank M. Wood, Warden, Minnesota State Prison, is hereby substituted for Bruce McManus, former Warden of the Minnesota State Prison, in his official capacity only. This substitution is made pursuant to stipulation of the parties and Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

VI.

That this Court makes no finding that said Defendants have, in fact, mistreated, deprived or neglected the individual Plaintiffs or members of the Plaintiff class. That, nonetheless, the terms and provisions of this order and decree shall be implemented by the Defendants, their successors, agents, employees and representatives, forthwith, as if the same had been involuntarily ordered:

VI.A.

PROVISION OF MEDICAL CARE

1. To the fullest extent possible in the prison environment, the provisions of Minn.Stat. § 144.651 (1974), commonly known as the “Patients’ Bill of Rights,” shall apply to inmates who receive medical care and treatment at the Minnesota State Prison. The provisions are as follows:

It is the intent of the legislature and the purpose of laws 1973, Chapter 688 to promote the interests and well being of the patients and residents of health care facilities. It is declared to be the public policy of this state that the interests of the patient be protected by a declaration of a patient’s bill of rights which shall include but not be limited to the following:
(1) Every patient and resident shall have the right to considerate and respectful care;
(2) Every patient can reasonably expect to obtain from his physician or the resident physician of the facility complete and current information concerning his diagnosis, treatment and prognosis in terms and language the patient *17 can reasonably be expected to understand.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hines v. Anderson
547 F.3d 915 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
Chris Krych v. Wendell Anderson
112 F. App'x 547 (Eighth Circuit, 2004)
Howard Lansing Hines v. Wendell Anderson
83 F. App'x 148 (Eighth Circuit, 2003)
Long v. Barry
149 F.3d 1187 (Eighth Circuit, 1998)
Charles Long v. Ann Barry
Eighth Circuit, 1998
Haavisto v. Perpich
520 N.W.2d 727 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1994)
Haavisto v. Perpich
498 N.W.2d 746 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1993)
Degidio v. Pung
920 F.2d 525 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)
DeGidio v. Pung
704 F. Supp. 922 (D. Minnesota, 1989)
County of Aitkin v. Department of Corrections
394 N.W.2d 608 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1986)
DeGidio v. Perpich
612 F. Supp. 1383 (D. Minnesota, 1985)
Krominga v. State
311 N.W.2d 858 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1981)
Kelsey v. Ewing
652 F.2d 4 (Eighth Circuit, 1981)
State v. C. A.
304 N.W.2d 353 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1981)
State v. CA
304 N.W.2d 353 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1981)
Pace v. Fauver
479 F. Supp. 456 (D. New Jersey, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
439 F. Supp. 12, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-anderson-mnd-1977.