CHMIEL v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al, No. 2:2018cv01691 - Document 93 (W.D. Pa. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 76 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, KYLE GUTH, WILLIAM NICHOLSON, 79 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM or in the alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ROBERT VALLEY, 81 MOTION to Dismiss re 75 Amended Complaint, filed by RUSSELL, 82 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by ARTHUR SANTOS, and 86 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , or in the alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by SMYTH, PAUL DASCANI, MIN HI PARK, BYUNGHAK JIN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge on 3/23/2020. (mqe)

Download PDF
CHMIEL v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al Doc. 93 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTEN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAVID CHMIEL, Plaintif, V. PENNSYLVNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Deendnts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civ. A. No. 18-1691 MEMOANDUM OPINION Plaintif David Chmiel ("Plaintiff'), an inmate currently incarcerated at the Stte Correctional Institution at Greene ("Prison"), commenced this action against multiple deendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that by not providing regular diabetic eye examinations necessary to detect diabetic retinopthy, the Prison's administrative and medical staf were deliberately indiferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintif also claims that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") discriminated against him on the basis of his diabetes and diabetic retinopathy in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), 29 U.S.C. § 794(a ). Named as Deendants in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are the DOC; the Prison's Health Care Administrators Guth and Nicholson; the Prison's ormer nd current medical directors, Drs. Jin and Smyth, respectively; Prison physicians Russell, Santos, Park, Dascani and Valley; and Michael Hice, a phlebotomist at the Prison (sometimes collectively reerred to as "Deendants"). Dockets.Justia.com impaired vision efectively prevents him rom receiving equal beneit of vrious non-medical services at the Prison-i.e., library, showers, yard access etc. (I. 11 67, 71, 72.) Additionally, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint plausibly alleges that the DOC subjected him to discriminatory treatment by reason of his disability-i.e., his diagnosis as a diabetic. (I. 163.) Plaintif has alleged that the DOC knowingly approved the Prison's standard practice to deny undoscopies to high risk diabetic patients like him. (I. 11 59-60.) This practice is discriminatory because, as alleged, the DOC does not have a blanket policy of denying proper chronic care or regular diagnostic exams to prisoners sufering rom chronic conditions other than diabetes. (I. 162.) In sum, Plaintif has stated a proper claim under the ADA and the RA. Accordingly, the DOC's motion to dismiss will be denied. V. CONCLUSION Based on the oregoing, the motions to dismiss iled by Dr. Valley and Dr. Sntos will be granted and those submitted by Dr. Dascani, Dr. Jin, Dr. Park, Dr. Smyth, Dr. Russell, HCAs Guth and Nicholson, and the DOC will be denied. Appropriate orders will ollow. Patricia L. Dodge United States Magistrate Judge Dated: March 23, 2020 18

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.