Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McNeil v. Commonwealth

March 21, 2006


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard P. Conaboy United States District Judge

(Judge Conaboy)



This civil rights action was initiated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Rosa L. McNeil (Plaintiff) regarding the death of her daughter, Marrie Linda McNeil (Decedent).*fn1 At the time of her death, the Decedent was a prisoner confined at the State Correctional Institution, Muncy, Pennsylvania (SCI-Muncy). The matter was subsequently transferred to this Court.

By Memorandum and Order dated January 20, 2006, this Court granted dismissal in favor of Defendants Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) and SCI-Muncy with respect to the Plaintiff's federal claims.

On March 10, 2006, summary judgment was entered in favor of Defendants Lycoming County Coroner's Office and Deputy Coroner Charles Kesling, R.N. with respect to the Plaintiff's federal law claims.

The remaining Defendants include the DOC's legal counsel, Randall N. Sears, Esq. and the following six (6) SCI-Muncy employees: Superintendent Martin L. Dragovitch; Deputy Superintendent David Patton; Health Care Coordinator Kathryn McCarty; Counselor Sue Hartman; Correctional Officer Kelly Miller; and Unit Manager Al Smith, III. Other remaining Defendants are John W. Nelms, D.D.S., Wexford Health Sources, Inc.*fn2 and the following Wexford employees: Craig Bardell, M.D., David H. Martin, P.A., and six (6) John/Jane Doe nurses (hereinafter the Wexford Defendants).

Presently pending is the first of three (3) motions requesting dismissal filed by the Wexford Defendants. See Doc. 10. The motion has been briefed and is ripe for consideration.*fn3 According to the complaint, the 42 year old Decedent had been confined at SCI-Muncy for approximately 5 years and was "relatively healthy" when she was found dead in an SCI-Muncy holding cell on the morning of July 4, 2002. Doc. 1, ¶ 29. Plaintiff alleges that her daughter's death was caused by "willful, wanton and criminally negligent medical care." Id., ¶ 4.

Specifically, it is alleged that the Decedent went to sick call at SCI-Muncy on or about June 23, 2002 with complaints of swollen glands, severe pain in her throat, and difficulty swallowing. In accordance with prison policy, the Decedent was not granted access to a physician, but rather, was required to make an appointment for the following day. The inmate's throat was given a cursory examination by a Wexford employee, either Doctor Bardell or one of the nurses named as a John/Jane Doe Defendant. Id. at 34. She was diagnosed as having strep and prescribed some type of "antibiotic therapy." Id. at ¶ 35. Although the Decedent's condition declined during the next 2-3 days her requests for medical treatment were purportedly denied.

On June 26, 2002, the Decedent had a pre-scheduled sick call appointment. She was allegedly placed under the care of a dentist, Doctor John Nelms, who concluded that the prisoner had a ruptured wisdom tooth. Doctor Nelms, who is not a Wexford employee, allegedly advised the Decedent that if he was going to extract the tooth he had to do so right away because he would not be returning to the prison for some time. Plaintiff maintains that the Decedent informed Doctor Nelms of her strep throat diagnosis and expressed concern about undergoing the procedure. The dentist allegedly told the prisoner that her strep throat would not present any problem. Doctor Nelms then performed the extraction of a right lower wisdom tooth and the extraction site was purportedly left open, unsutured, and exposed. The Decedent was prescribed Motrin for pain.

Due to excruciating pain, weakness, and swelling to the right side of her face, the Decedent sought medical assistance the next day. Once again, she was denied immediate access to a doctor under SCI-Muncy policy and was required to make an appointment for the next day. The Decedent was purportedly seen by Doctor Bardell and/or one of the John/Jane Doe nurse Defendants on June 28, 2002 and told that she had an inner ear infection which required no further care since she was already on an antibiotic and pain medication. She was allowed to remain in the prison infirmary overnight and was returned to her cell the following morning.

It is next asserted that between June 29, 2002 and July 1, 2002, Decedent's condition continued to decline. She purportedly developed a foul decaying stench, was unable to perform any daily hygiene, and Defendants Miller, Smith, and Hartman (non-Wexford Defendants) ignored her pleas for medical assistance. Despite those developments, her screams for assistance and requests from other inmates, Plaintiff claims that no medical attention was provided to the Decedent.

Thereafter, a fellow inmate signed the Decedent up for sick call on July 1, 2002. Since the prisoner was now unable to ambulate, fellow inmates physically assisted her to the appointment. However, because she was already scheduled for a follow up appointment on July 3, 2002, the Decedent went untreated on July 1, 2002 and was returned to her cell. During the next two days the John/Jane Doe nurses allegedly failed to provide the now non-ambulatory Decedent with any assistance and refused to permit delivery of previously prescribed medications to her cell.

On July 3, 2002, Plaintiff states that the Decedent was physically unable to attend an appointment with Defendant Doctor Bardell. At one point, Defendant Miller allegedly stood in the Decedent's cell, observed her extreme distress yet failed to arrange for Decedent to be transported to her appointment with Bardell. The complaint acknowledges ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.