R. P. Buehl v. J. Beard, et al. (Majority Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Roger Peter Buehl, Appellant v. Jeffrey Beard, et al. BEFORE: : : : : : : : No. 30 C.D. 2010 Submitted: July 16, 2010 HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE KELLEY FILED: December 23, 2010 Roger Buehl appeals, pro se, from a final order of the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County (trial court), sustaining the preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer filed on behalf of Jeffrey Beard, Cindy Watson, Paul Smeal and John Palakovich (collectively, Correction Defendants). We affirm. Buehl is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at Smithfield. On March 20, 2008 filed a Complaint followed by an Amended Complaint on May 15, 2008 against Prison Health Services, Inc. Ronald Long, M.D., and Dawn Mills, Physician Assistant (collectively, Medical Defendants) and Correction Defendants with the trial court. Therein, Buehl claimed defendants failed to provide adequate healthcare treatment for his inguinal hernia and scabies. Buehl alleged that Correction Defendants violated the Pennsylvania Constitution by acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs in reviewing, authorizing, upholding, and/or enforcing the Department of Correction s (Department) healthcare policies and by failing to prevent or control ectoparasitic infestations. Buehl alleged that the Medical Defendants acted with reckless indifference and negligence in addressing his medical needs. Buehl also claimed that Defendant Beard, Secretary of the Department of Corrections (Department), acted negligently in establishing the Department s hernia policy. Based upon these claims, Buehl sought declaratory, mandamus and injunctive relief,1 as well as compensatory and punitive damages.2 In response, the Correction Defendants and Medical Defendants filed preliminary objections. By order dated January 29, 2009, the trial court sustained 1 Although Buehl prays for injunctive relief, Buehl does not seek to prohibit Defendants from acting, but rather seeks to compel them to take affirmative action. 2 Notwithstanding the declaratory relief demanded, Buehl s action against Defendant Beard and the Medical Defendants seeking compensatory damages for negligence is in the nature of common law trespass and, therefore, jurisdiction was properly vested in the court of common pleas. Section 761(a)(1) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §761(a)(1) (The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings: (1) Against the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity, except: ¦ (v) actions or proceedings in the nature of trespass as to which the Commonwealth government formerly enjoyed sovereign or other immunity and actions or proceedings in the nature of assumpsit relating to such actions or proceedings in the nature of trespass.); Stackhouse v. Commonwealth, 574 Pa. 558, 565, 832 A.2d 1004, 1009 (2003) (Where the core of Appellant's complaint is an action in trespass, original jurisdiction lies in the court of common pleas notwithstanding the injunctive/declaratory label attached to Count I. ); Balshy v. Rank, 507 Pa. 384, 396, 490 A.2d 415, 420-421 (1985) ( We hold today the clear intent of the General Assembly is that actions against the Commonwealth or its officers acting in their official capacity for money damages based on tort liability are outside the original jurisdiction of Commonwealth Court and are properly commenced in the Courts of Common Pleas. ); Fawber v. Cohen, 516 Pa. 352, 360, 532 A.2d 429, 433-434 (1987) (quoting Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571, 576, 190 A.2d 111, 114 (1963)) ( Suits which seek to compel affirmative action on the part of state officials or to obtain money damages or to recover property from the Commonwealth are within the rule of immunity; suits which simply seek to restrain state officials from performing affirmative acts are not within the rule of immunity. ). 2. the Correction Defendants preliminary objections in the nature of demurrer, but dismissed the Medical Defendants preliminary objections, but for their objection to Buehl s request for punitive damages, which the trial court sustained. The case against the Medical Defendants proceeded before the trial court. On December 9, 2009, Buehl filed a praecipe to discontinue his action against the Medical Defendants. Buehl then filed a timely notice of appeal of the trial court s January 29, 2009 order sustaining the Correction Defendants preliminary objections.3 In this appeal, Buehl raises the following issues for our review: 1. Does the Amended Complaint state a constitutional claim that the Correction Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Buehl s serious medical needs when they established and enforced Department clinical practice guidelines which limited and delayed medical professionals treatment of Buehl s inguinal hernia? 2. Does the Amended Complaint state a viable negligence claim, within the medical-professional immunity exception set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §8522(b)(2), that Defendant Beard acted with reckless indifference and/or failed to exercise reasonable care in establishing, signing and implementing Department clinical practice guidelines which limited and delayed medical treatment for Buehl s inguinal hernia? 3. Did the trial court override, disregard or ignore facts pleaded in the Amended Complaint when it found that Correction Defendants lacked actual or imputed knowledge that their actions subjected Buehl to a substantial risk of harm, which is necessary to establish the scienter element of a constitutional claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs? 3 Our scope of review of a trial court order sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Larry Pitt & Associates v. Long, 716 A.2d 695 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). 3. We conclude that the trial court thoroughly and correctly analyzed these issues and that this matter was ably disposed of in the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Judge Stewart Kurtz. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Judge Kurtz's opinion in Buehl v. Beard, et al. (No. 07-1496, filed March 12, 2010). _________________________________ JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge 4. IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Roger Peter Buehl, Appellant v. Jeffrey Beard, et al. : : : : : : : No. 30 C.D. 2010 ORDER AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2010, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County, dated January 29, 2009, at Docket No. 07-1496, is AFFIRMED. _________________________________ JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.