Morales Feliciano v. Rossello Gonzalez

13 F. Supp. 2d 151, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20803, 1998 WL 300517
CourtDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico
DecidedMay 18, 1998
DocketCIV. 79-4(PG)
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 13 F. Supp. 2d 151 (Morales Feliciano v. Rossello Gonzalez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Morales Feliciano v. Rossello Gonzalez, 13 F. Supp. 2d 151, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20803, 1998 WL 300517 (prd 1998).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

PEREZ-GIMENEZ, District Judge.

1. On March 10, 1997, the court entered an order appointing Vincent M. Nathan, Esq., the former Court Monitor, as an expert witness pursuant to Rule 706, Fed. R. Ev., to prepare a report that would update the record in this case and document the state of compliance with the court’s orders. The court directed Mr. Nathan to submit a report on medical and mental health care. Mr. *154 Nathan’s report concluded that “there is virtually no likelihood that the defendants, left to their own devices, will ever achieve compliance with the court’s orders in the areas of medical and mental health care or will ever provide services in these areas that comport with even the most basic constitutional requirements.” Report on Medical and Mental Health Care at 39 (filed April 14, 1997, admitted in evidence over objection as CT Exhibit 13). Accordingly, Mr. Nathan recommended that the court appoint “a receiver with ample authority to manage the Correctional Health Program free of all constraints of Commonwealth law.” Id. at 40. That report and recommendation set the stage for the instant proceedings.

2. The Court received motions from both the plaintiffs and the defendants opposing the court’s expert witness’s recommendation of a receiver. Motion to Submit Plaintiffs’ Specific Alternative to the Court’s Expert Witness’ Recommendation that a Receiver Be Appointed to Resolve the Correctional Health Program Crisis (Dkt.6559, May 19, 1997); Supplemental Motion on Plaintiffs’ Proposed Alternative to a Receivership for the Correctional Health Program (Dkt. 6590, June 26, 1997); Final Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Specific Alternative to the Court’s Expert Witness’ Recommendation that a Receiver Be Appointed to solve the Correctional Health Program Crisis (Plaintiffs’ Alternative) (Dkt.6615, August 8, 1997); Defendants’ Motion Requesting Additional Time to Address Plaintiffs’ Alternative Recommendation to the Expert Witness’ Report on the Correctional Health Program (Dkt.6565, May 30, 1997); Defendants’ Supplement to Their Correctional Health Program Crisis Proposal (Dkt.6627, August 18, 1997). The Court scheduled a hearing to commence August 18, 1997, to address the recommendation and the current state of medical and mental health care in the prison system. 1 The Correctional Health Program is referred to as the Program or the CHP. After the hearing was concluded, the parties submitted a Plaintiff Class’ and Defendants’ Joint Proposal Concerning Correctional Health Program (September 26,1997).

3. At the hearing, 13 witnesses testified. In general, the witnesses were distinguished professionals knowledgeable about the Puer-to Rico prison system, and highly credible, with such exceptions as set out below. 2 In *156 addition to the testimony, close to seven hundred documentary exhibits were submitted by plaintiffs and stipulated by defendants including considerable statistical data concerning the operation of the Correctional Health Program. Additional documentary evidence was submitted on behalf of the Court’s Expert Witness, without objection by the parties. Some documents were admitted over objection.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

4. The defendants in this litigation have been subject to court orders to improve the delivery of health care services to inmates dating back to the court’s preliminary injunction of 1980. Feliciano v. Barcelo, 497 F.Supp. 14 (D.P.R.1980). The parties eventually stipulated to the Medical Care and Mental Health plans (together referred to below as the “Plans”). In 1990, the court approved the court monitor’s Amended 62nd Report, the Report Recommending Adoption of Revised Medical and Mental Health Plans, which included the Plans. The court’s order of approval also ordered defendants to implement the Plans to remedy almost a decade of non-compliance with the court’s orders to provide constitutionally required health care. As a result, the Administrator of Correction and the Secretary of Health agreed to transfer the responsibility for correctional health services to the Department of Health. In 1986, after farther hearings, the court found inter alia that the preliminary injunction had not been complied with. The court appointed Vincent M. Nathan, Esquire, as the Court Monitor, to monitor compliance with its orders, including those addressing medical and mental health care. Morales Feliciano v. Romero Barcelo, 672 F.Supp. 591 (D.P.R.1986).

5. In 1980, health care services within Puerto Rico’s prisons were virtually nonexistent. There was one psychiatrist for the entire system, which had custody at that time of approximately 3,000 inmates. Mentally ill patients at Bayamón 308 were housed in what was known as the “máxima de locos” (maximum for crazies), where they received virtually no attention and the distribution of medication was carried out by other inmates. There were three, perhaps four physicians to provide medical services to the entire AOC inmate population. There were no licensed pharmacists in the system.

6. In 1988, the Administration of Correction entered into an agreement with the Department of Health by which correctional health services were to be rendered by Department of Health personnel. By 1993, the program under which such services were provided was just beginning to develop an identity of its own and was designated the Correctional Health Program. At the same time, the services at the institutional level were severely disorganized and understaffed and still relied upon unlicenced personnel. The services were not integrated and each “track” of services — e.g., nursing, mental health, etc. — responded to its own directors at the central office level. There was only one licensed pharmacist for all of the island’s penal institutions. Medical records were disorganized and there was not even a rudimentary infectious disease control program. Quality improvement was very fragmented. Health education was done by a psychologist at the central level and was not being extended to the institutions. The administrative aspects of the program were being performed by a single secretary.

7. A 1990 report by the Court Monitor concluded, based on the assessments of two distinguished expert consultants, that “[a] number of conditions found and prohibited by the Court in 1980 persist throughout the *157 correctional system, and the current medical and mental health delivery systems throughout the AOC endanger the lives and health of inmates and staff alike.” 100th Report of the Court Monitor — Report on Delivery of Medical and Mental Health Care (Dkt.2050, at 3, filed February 2,1990, confirmed by order of June 14, 1990, Dkt. 2268). This conclusion, and the experts’ findings, were not contested by the defendants and, indeed, came as no surprise. When the Court Monitor first introduced the consultants to the then Administrator of Corrections, Dra. Mercedes Otero de Ramos, she

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

Related

Criswell v. Boudreaux
E.D. California, 2020
Haulcomb v. Cochran
S.D. Alabama, 2019
Roman-Montañez v. Torres-Mendez
284 F. Supp. 3d 134 (U.S. District Court, 2018)
Hernandez v. County of Monterey
110 F. Supp. 3d 929 (N.D. California, 2015)
Rodríguez-Sánchez v. Acevedo-Vilá
763 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Puerto Rico, 2011)
Torres-Arroyo v. Rullan
436 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2006)
Alsina-Ortiz v. Laboy
400 F.3d 77 (First Circuit, 2005)
Morales Feliciano,et v. John A. Rullan
378 F.3d 42 (First Circuit, 2004)
Ginest v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS. OF CARBON COUNTY
333 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (D. Wyoming, 2004)
Morales Feliciano v. Calderon Serra
300 F. Supp. 2d 321 (D. Puerto Rico, 2004)
Morales-Feliciano v. Rullan
303 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2002)
Miller v. French
530 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 F. Supp. 2d 151, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20803, 1998 WL 300517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-feliciano-v-rossello-gonzalez-prd-1998.