Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD HOLLIHAN,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

) COMPLAINT--CLASS ACTION

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS; JOHN WETZEL,

)

Secretary of the Pennsylvania

) Civil No.

Department of Corrections; BRYAN )

HYDE, Correctional Health Care

)

Administrator; DR. RASHIDA

)

MAHMUD; DR. JOHN ROBINSON; )

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,

)

INC.; and DR. DONALD KERA.

)

)

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, by policy and practice, systematically denies necessary medical care for inmates with serious eye conditions including severe cataracts, thereby condemning them to partial or total blindness. Plaintiff Richard Hollihan brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of similarly-situated plaintiffs, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 2 of 24
prison officials and medical providers for discriminating against them on the basis of their disability and for depriving them of their rights guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
2. Mr. Hollihan is incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset (“SCI Somerset”) with a serious vision impairment requiring surgery. Mr. Hollihan has no vision in his left eye due to a dense cataract and has deteriorating vision in his right eye. Despite repeated recommendations for cataract surgery by his doctors, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and its staff have denied Plaintiff Hollihan access to necessary medical care as a result of their discriminatory and unconstitutional “One Good Eye” policy, which denies surgical treatment in a diseased eye if an inmate has some vision in the other eye.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 2202, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to adjudicate the claims made under Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
2

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 3 of 24
1331 and 1343. 5. Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
since Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ principal office is located in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, within the Middle District.
PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Richard Hollihan is an adult individual currently incarcerated at SCI Somerset. Mr. Hollihan sues for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who are currently or will in the future be subject to Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ discriminatory and unconstitutional “One Good Eye” policy. Mr. Hollihan also seeks damages for the denial of his statutory and constitutional rights. 7. Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) is an agency of the State of Pennsylvania that operates SCI Somerset and receives federal funding. The principal office for the DOC is located in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 8. Defendant John Wetzel is the Secretary of the DOC. He is responsible for the overall oversight, operation, and administration of the Commonwealth’s correctional system. He is sued in his official capacity. At all relevant times, Defendant Wetzel has acted and will continue to act under color of state law. 9. Defendant Brian Hyde is the Correctional Health Care Administrator at
3

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 4 of 24
SCI Somerset. He is responsible for the overall oversight of health care at SCI Somerset. He is sued in his official and individual capacities. At all relevant times, Defendant Hyde has acted and will continue to act under color of state law.
10. Defendant Dr. Rashida Mahmud is a medical doctor at SCI Somerset. She is sued in her individual capacity. At all relevant times, Defendant Mahmud has acted and will continue to act under color of state law.
11. Defendant Dr. John Robinson is the medical director at SCI Somerset. He is responsible for overseeing medical care at SCI Somerset and approving treatment. He is sued in his official and individual capacity. At all relevant times, Defendant Robinson has acted and will continue to act under color of state law.
12. Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford Health”) is a company that provides health services for all DOC facilities. The principal office for Wexford Health is located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At all relevant times, Defendant Wexford Health has acted and will continue to act under color of state law.
13. Defendant Dr. Donald Kera was at all relevant times an employee of Defendant Wexford Health who oversaw the health care provided by Wexford Health to inmates incarcerated by the DOC throughout the Commonwealth. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all relevant times, Defendant Kera has acted and will continue to act under color of state law.
4

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 5 of 24
FACTS The DOC’s “One Good Eye” Policy
14. On information and belief, Defendant DOC, has adopted an official policy and practice that denies necessary surgical treatment to inmates with a severe eye disease in one eye, but with another eye that provides some level of vision that Defendant DOC claims to be adequate. This policy and practice is referred to as the “One Good Eye” policy.
15. As a consequence of Defendant DOC’s “One Good Eye” policy, inmates are denied necessary surgical treatment for cataracts and other conditions and are forced to languish with serious eye conditions, which can cause legal or total blindness in the diseased eye.
16. As the Secretary of the DOC, Defendant Wetzel enforces and implements the DOC’s “One Good Eye” policy.
17. Defendant DOC’s current “One Good Eye” policy is in the exclusive possession of Defendants and is not publically available.
18. Defendant DOC’s “One Good Eye” policy discriminates against individuals with physical eye impairments on the basis of their disability.
19. There is no medical justification for the “One Good Eye” policy. Reducing expenditures by denying necessary medical care is not an appropriate justification for the “One Good Eye” policy.
5

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 6 of 24
20. Defendant Wexford Health, as a matter of official corporate policy and/or custom, has enforced the discriminatory and unconstitutional “One Good Eye” policy. The One Good Eye Policy and Cataracts
21. As of 2007, the “One Good Eye” policy was applied to cataracts at SCI Somerset through Guidelines that refused cataract surgery unless (i) an inmate has Snellen binocular visual acuity testing of 20/50 (or worse) despite corrective devices;1 (ii) there is potential for undetected retinal disease, which cannot be visualized due to the presence of the cataract; (iii) the cataract is hypermature; and (iv) the inmate’s activities of daily living are significantly compromised by impaired visual acuity that is not corrected by eyeglasses and lighting. On information and belief, these Guidelines are enforced at the present time in the same, or substantially the same, form.
22. A cataract is a clouding of the lens of the eye that affects vision. Cataracts are the most common cause of reversible blindness.
23. A cataract causes visual loss because opacification of the lens obstructs light from passing and being focused on the back of the eye, called the retina.
1 Visual acuity is frequently measured according to the size of letters viewed on a Snellen chart, which commonly has a large “E” at the top corresponding to 20/200 vision. Subsequent rows have increasing numbers of letters that decrease in size and correspond to higher visual acuity.
6

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 7 of 24
24. Healthy visual acuity is 20/20 or better. A person with 20/50 vision must be as close as 20 feet to see what a person with normal vision can see at 50 feet.
25. Over time, cataracts may grow larger and more dense, resulting in increased clouding of the lens and decreased visual acuity.
26. A patient with a hypermature cataract is legally blind, which corresponds to visual acuity of 20/200 or worse, and may only perceive light in that eye. A patient who is only able to perceive light can see whether big bright lights in a room are on or off, but can see nothing else.
27. A hypermature cataract prevents the detection of retinal disease and optic nerve health, which cannot be visualized due to the presence of the cataract.
28. Cataract surgery is required to correct a hypermature cataract in an effort to restore vision to the eye. Cataract surgery replaces the cloudy lens with an artificial lens.
29. Non-surgical treatment, such as glasses or eye drops, will not restore vision in a patient with a hypermature cataract.
30. Waiting to perform surgery until a cataract is hypermature may result in a worse surgical outcome than if surgery had been performed earlier.
31. As a result of Defendant DOC’s “One Good Eye” policy, inmates with a hypermature cataract or other serious eye condition will stay blind in an eye that
7

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 8 of 24
could be surgically corrected to provide good vision. 32. Monocular vision results in a loss of depth perception, which causes
balance issues and difficulty performing activities of normal living. 33. Despite Defendant DOC’s “One Good Eye” policy, under which
inmates with vision worse than 20/50 in the better-seeing eye should have cataract or other surgery, in practice, the DOC refuses necessary surgery to inmates including those who have a hypermature cataract in one eye and vision that is worse than 20/50 in the better-seeing eye.
34. The “One Good Eye” policy interferes with the independent medical judgment of physicians treating Mr. Hollihan and members of the class. Plaintiff Richard Hollihan
35. Mr. Hollihan is a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, who was honorably discharged.
36. Mr. Hollihan entered the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections system in 1986.
37. Mr. Hollihan began experiencing pain in his right eye in 1999. 38. Mr. Hollihan was transferred to SCI Somerset in 2001. 39. Mr. Hollihan underwent cataract surgery for his right eye on November 6, 2001. The cataract was removed and was replaced with an artificial lens.
8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 9 of 24
40. By 2008, Dr. Irwin, an optometrist at SCI Somerset, had determined that Mr. Hollihan’s left eye required cataract surgery and Mr. Hollihan consented to this procedure.
41. Notwithstanding the medical necessity for this procedure, Defendant DOC and its staff refused to permit cataract surgery, a decision that was grieved by Mr. Hollihan in 2010.
42. Mr. Hollihan appealed the denial of this grievance to the final level of appeal where it was rejected, in December 2010.
43. In February 2012, Defendant Mahmud and Dr. Shariat, an ophthalmologist at Somerset Hospital who examined Mr. Hollihan, determined that Mr. Hollihan’s corrected vision in his right eye was 20/70 and that he had a very ripe cataract in his left eye.
44. In February 2012, Dr. Dascani, a medical doctor at SCI Somerset, ordered a subsequent consultation with Dr. Shariat to take place in June 2012 regarding Mr. Hollihan’s cataract.
45. In March 2012, Dr. Irwin noted that Mr. Hollihan had a dense cataract in his left eye, which could not be refracted for visual acuity.
46. In May 2012, a physical examination for Mr. Hollihan noted that visual acuity for Mr. Hollihan’s left eye could not be tested due to his cataract and that the left eye (including the retina) could not be examined due to an opaque
9

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 10 of 24
pupil. 47. In June 2012, Dr. Shariat examined Mr. Hollihan at SCI Somerset and
determined that the corrected vision in his right eye was 20/70 and that he had a hypermature cataract in his left eye. As the referring physician, Defendant Mahmud recorded the results of Dr. Shariat’s examination in Mr. Hollihan’s medical records.
48. In August 2012, Dr. Shariat examined Mr. Hollihan and again determined that he had corrected vision in his right eye of 20/70 and a hypermature cataract in his left eye. Dr. Shariat requested Defendant Mahmud arrange for Mr. Hollihan’s cataract surgery.
49. Defendant Mahmud then ordered cataract surgery for Mr. Hollihan to take place in September 2012 and to be performed by Dr. Shariat.
50. In September 2012, Defendant Mahmud noted that Mr. Hollihan was scheduled for cataract removal that month, which was to be performed by Dr. Shariat.
51. In October 2012, Defendant Mahmud cancelled Mr. Hollihan’s cataract surgery, but noted that the surgery would take place at a later time.
52. Mr. Hollihan grieved the cancellation of his cataract surgery. 53. On December 12, 2012, Superintendent Rozum denied Mr. Hollihan’s appeal at the facility level. Although Superintendent Rozum upheld the cancellation of Mr. Hollihan’s surgery, he noted that it would be rescheduled.
10

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 11 of 24
54. On January 24, 2013, DOC Chief Grievance Officer Dorina Varner issued a “Final Appeal Decision” denying Mr. Hollihan’s appeal. Although Chief Grievance Officer Varner upheld the cancellation of Mr. Hollihan’s surgery, she noted that it would be rescheduled
55. In May 2013, Dr. Irwin noted that Mr. Hollihan had a very dense cataract in his left eye and referred Mr. Hollihan to an ophthalmologist for cataract surgery.
56. In May 2013, Defendant Mahmud recommended that Mr. Hollihan have a consultation in three months regarding the “very dense” cataract in his left eye. However, Defendant Mahmud determined that Mr. Hollihan was not a candidate for cataract surgery at that time as his visual acuity in his right eye was 20/60.
57. In May 2013, a physical examination of Mr. Hollihan showed that his right pupil was sluggish in response to light.
58. On June 10, 2013 Mr. Hollihan filed a Request to Staff to the Medical Department requesting that he be allowed to see the ophthalmologist for surgery as recommended by Dr. Irwin.
59. Defendant Hyde responded to Mr. Hollihan’s request that because the vision in his right eye was 20/60, Mr. Hollihan was not a candidate for cataract surgery.
11

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 12 of 24
60. In the summer and fall of 2013, Mr. Hollihan filed multiple requests to staff discussing the denial of cataract surgery.
61. In September 2013, Defendant Mahmud noted that Mr. Hollihan had only light perception in his left eye and recommended that Mr. Hollihan have a consultation in three months regarding the cataract in his left eye.
62. On December 19, 2013, Dr. Dascani noted that Mr. Hollihan had progressive loss of vision and was unable to see through the clouded cataract in his left eye and referred Mr. Hollihan to Dr. Vittone, an ophthalmologist.
63. On December 22, 2013, Defendant Robinson, acting as the site or regional medical director of Defendant DOC, denied Dr. Dacani’s referral, noting that Mr. Hollihan did not meet the criteria for surgery.
64. On December 23 2013, Defendant Kera, in his capacity as an employee of Defendant Wexford Health, also denied Dr. Dascani’s request for a referral to the ophthalmologist, observing that Mr. Hollihan had “good vision in his right eye.”
65. In February 2014, Mr. Hollihan filed an inmate Request to Staff seeking an explanation as to why he had not seen Dr. Vittone in January 2014.
66. Defendant Hyde denied this request because Mr. Hollihan did not meet the criteria for cataract extraction.
67. On February 22, 2014, Mr. Hollihan filed a grievance related to failing
12

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 13 of 24
to see an ophthalmologist and the continuing deterioration of his left eye. 68. On March 3, 2014, Deputy Superintendent Joseph Mazurkiewicz
denied the grievance and stated: “DOC Policy 13.2.1, Section 16, Chapter 4 addresses cataract surgery. You have corrected vision better than 20/50 in one eye. All local remedies have been exhausted per policies governing the Medical Department. Based on the above information, this grievance is denied.” (emphasis added).
69. On March 31, 2014, Superintendent Rozum denied Mr. Hollihan’s appeal at the facility level. In particular, Superintendent Rozum stated: “[D]OC Policy is being followed concerning the inmate’s request for cataract surgery. Medical has found the inmate has corrected vision better than 20/50 in one eye, which makes him ineligible for the surgery at this time.” (emphasis added). Superintendent Rozum also denied “inmate’s request for Policy change.”
70. On May 22, 2014, DOC Chief Grievance Officer Dorina Varner issued a “Final Appeal Decision” denying Mr. Hollihan’s appeal. Chief Grievance Officer Varner noted that “there is nothing new to add to the Superintendent’s response dated March 31, 2014.”
71. Prison staff have described the DOC policy referenced in Paragraphs 68 and 69 to Mr. Hollihan as a “One Eye” policy or “One Good Eye” policy.
72. Given that Mr. Hollihan’s right eye consistently measured visual acuity
13

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 14 of 24
of 20/60 or 20/70 during prior testing, it is implausible that Mr. Hollihan’s right eye was “better than 20/50” at the time he filed his 2014 grievance.
73. As a result of Defendant DOC’s denial of cataract surgery, Mr. Hollihan is essentially blind in his left eye.
74. The cataract in Mr. Hollihan’s left eye prevents the detection of retinal disease and optic nerve health, which cannot be visualized due to the presence of the cataract. Mr. Hollihan is especially at risk for retinal disease and optic nerve issues due to his other health problems.
75. Vision in Mr. Hollihan’s better-seeing eye is deteriorating due to the stress caused by the loss of sight in his cataract-afflicted eye.
76. The refusal of Defendant DOC to provide Mr. Hollihan and other inmates with similar visual disabilities with access to medical services is discrimination on the basis of his disability.
77. As a result of his impairment, Mr. Hollihan experiences great difficulty reading and writing, which are activities of daily living within prison.
78. Mr. Hollihan’s deteriorating monocular vision also causes him to frequently walk into people and objects and substantially limits his ability to perform manual tasks.
79. Mr. Hollihan’s disability, and Defendant DOC’s failure to accommodate his disability, prevents him from participating in and benefiting from
14

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 15 of 24
the programs and services offered at SCI Somerset, including religious services and communications with family, counsel and the courts, and endangers his personal health and safety.
80. The cataract policy purportedly contained in DOC Policy 13.2.1, Section 16, Chapter 4 is not publically available and is in the exclusive possession of Defendants.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 81. Plaintiff brings this suit as a class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (the “Class”) pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2). 82. Plaintiff seeks to represent the following class on claims for declaratory and injunctive relief: All persons who are currently incarcerated in a Pennsylvania Department of Corrections facility who have been diagnosed with a serious eye condition, which absent surgical intervention will cause serious visual impairment in the afflicted eye, and who have been refused necessary surgical treatment by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections or its staff, pursuant to a policy or practice of denying surgery to inmates who have one better-seeing eye. 83. As a result of Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of the Class, the members of the Class are or will be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and deprived of other constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate Defendants’ actions, policies, and practices which infringe their rights.
15

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 16 of 24
84. The requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) are all satisfied by this class action.
85. The information as to the size of the Class and the identity of the inmates who are in the class is in the exclusive control of Defendants. On information and belief the class encompasses hundreds of inmates in the DOC, who are geographically dispersed throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The number of persons who are members of the Class described above are so numerous that joinder of all members in one action is impracticable.
86. Questions of law and fact that are common to the entire Class predominate over individual questions because the actions of Defendants complained of herein were generally applicable to the entire Class. These legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to:
a. The nature, scope and operations of Defendants’ wrongful practices; b. The type of injury alleged by the Class; c. The type of necessary medical treatment sought by the Class; d. Whether DOC’s “One Good Eye” policy, which denies necessary
surgical treatment for serious eye conditions to inmates who have one better-seeing eye, violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
16

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 17 of 24
e. Whether Defendants’ conduct violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act;
f. Whether Defendants’ conduct violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;
87. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the members of the Class because Plaintiff and all Class Members were injured by the same wrongful policy and practices of Defendants as described in this Complaint. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same practices and course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of the Class Members, and are based on the same legal theories.
88. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests that are contrary to or in conflict with those of the Class they seek to represent. Plaintiff is represented by competent and skilled counsel whose interests are fully aligned with the interests of the Class.
89. Relief concerning Plaintiff’s rights under the laws herein alleged and with respect to the Class would be proper. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with regard to Class Members as a whole and certification of the Class under Rule 23(b)(2) proper.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 90. Mr. Hollihan fully exhausted his available administrative remedies.
17

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 18 of 24
CLAIMS Count I: Discrimination and Exclusion From Services of a Public Entity In
Violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (against Defendants Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Wetzel, and Hyde in
their official capacities) 91. Plaintiff Richard Hollihan incorporates paragraphs 1 through 90 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 92. Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, by and through Defendants Wetzel and Hyde and other DOC staff, discriminated against Plaintiff Richard Hollihan and caused him to be excluded from participation in programs and denied access to services at SCI Somerset, due to his disability in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Count II: Exclusion From Services of a Federally Funded Entity in Violation
of the Rehabilitation Act (against Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections) 93. Plaintiff Richard Hollihan incorporates paragraphs 1 through 90 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 94. Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, a recipient of federal funds, caused Plaintiff Richard Hollihan to be excluded from participation in programs and denied access to services at SCI Somerset, due to his disabilities in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
18

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 19 of 24
Count III: Deprivation of Eighth Amendment Right Not to Undergo Cruel and Unusual Punishment
(against Defendants Wetzel, Hyde, and Robinson in their official capacities) 95. Plaintiffs Richard Hollihan incorporates paragraphs 1 through 90 of
this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 96. Defendant John Wetzel, Secretary of Corrections; Defendant Bryan
Hyde, Correctional Health Care Administrator at SCI Somerset; and Defendant Robinson, medical director at SCI Somerset, have enforced the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ “One Good Eye” policy, which constitutes a deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners requiring eye surgeries thereby establishing a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Count IV: Deprivation of Right Not to Undergo Cruel and Unusual Punishment under the Pennsylvania Constitution
(against Defendants Wetzel, Hyde, and Robinson in their official capacities) 97. Plaintiffs Richard Hollihan incorporates paragraphs 1 through 90 of
this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 98. Defendant John Wetzel, Secretary of Corrections; Defendant Bryan
Hyde, Correctional Health Care Administrator at SCI Somerset; and Defendant Robinson, medical director at SCI Somerset, have enforced the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ “One Good Eye” policy, which constitutes a deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners requiring eye surgeries
19

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 20 of 24
thereby establishing a violation of Article I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Count V: Deprivation of Eighth Amendment Right Not to Undergo Cruel and
Unusual Punishment (against Defendants Hyde, Mahmud, Robinson, Wexford Health, and Kera in their
individual capacities) 99. Plaintiff Richard Hollihan incorporates paragraphs 1 through 90 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 100. Defendant Hyde’s conclusion, on multiple occasions, that Mr. Hollihan failed to meet the criteria for a cataract surgery and denial of cataract surgery based on the “One Good Eye” policy constitutes deliberate indifference to Mr. Hollihan’s serious medical need thereby violating his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as proscribed by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 101. Defendant Mahmud’s cancellation of Mr. Hollihan’s cataract surgery and failure to re-schedule it, as well as denial of cataract surgery based on the “One Good Eye” policy, constitutes deliberate indifference to Mr. Hollihan’s serious medical need thereby violating his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as proscribed by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 102. Defendant Robinson’s awareness of Mr. Hollihan’s need for cataract surgery and refusal to approve this necessary medical treatment constitutes deliberate indifference to Mr. Hollihan’s serious medical need, thereby violating his
20

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 21 of 24

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as proscribed by the Eighth

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

103. Defendant Wexford Health, as a matter of official corporate policy or

custom, has enforced the discriminatory and unconstitutional “One Good Eye”

policy. Defendant Wexford Health’s awareness of Mr. Hollihan’s need for cataract

surgery and denial of cataract surgery based on the “One Good Eye” policy

constitutes deliberate indifference to Mr. Hollihan’s serious medical need, thereby

violating his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as proscribed by

the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

104. Defendant Kera’s awareness of Mr. Hollihan’s need for cataract

surgery and denial of cataract surgery based on the “One Good Eye” policy

constitutes deliberate indifference to Mr. Hollihan’s serious medical need, thereby

violating his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as proscribed by

the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

RELIEF DEMANDED

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Richard Hollihan respectfully requests the

following relief:

1.

For the named plaintiff and members of the plaintiff Class, a

Declaratory Judgment that Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’

“One Good Eye” policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the

21

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 22 of 24

Rehabilitation Act, the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and

Article I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution;

2.

For the named plaintiff, injunctive relief ordering cataract surgery,

which shall occur as soon as possible, as well as any medically appropriate and

necessary follow-up treatment;

3.

For the members of the plaintiff Class, injunctive relief ordering

(a) identification of all inmates who were denied recommended eye surgery under

the Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ “One Good Eye” policy

and (b) the provision of medically necessary and appropriate treatment, including

surgery to all identified inmates;

4.

An award of appropriate compensatory and punitive damages

against Defendants in favor of Mr. Hollihan in an amount to be determined by the

finder of fact;

5.

Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

6.

Such other relief the Court deems just and equitable.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury on all issues within the instant

action so triable.

22

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 23 of 24

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/02/15 Page 24 of 24

Date: January 2, 2015

Attorneys for Plaintiff Richard Hollihan

24

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD HOLLIHAN,
Plaintiff v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-005 : : (Chief Judge Conner) : : : : : :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2015, upon consideration of plaintiff

Richard Hollihan’s (“Hollihan”) motion (Doc. 2) for class certification, wherein Hollihan seeks certification of a class comprising “[a]ll persons who are currently incarcerated in a Pennsylvania Department of Corrections [(“DOC”)] facility who have been diagnosed with a serious eye condition, which absent surgical intervention will cause serious visual impairment in the afflicted eye, and who have been refused necessary surgical treatment by the [DOC] or its staff, pursuant to a policy or practice of denying surgery to inmates who have one better-seeing eye,” (id. at 1), and further upon consideration of defendants’ briefs (Docs. 27, 40) in opposition, wherein defendants assert that Hollihan proffers insufficient evidence to satisfy the class certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, FED. R. CIV. P. 23; (Doc. 27 at 3-11; Doc. 40 at 4-8), and request the court to deny Hollihan’s motion, or, in the alternative, to afford the parties an opportunity to engage in fact discovery, (Doc. 40 at 7), and the court noting that Hollihan responds in his reply brief (Doc. 32) that he “would be amenable” to said requested discovery,

(id. at 10), and it appearing that pursuant to Rule 23, Hollihan must establish that “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a), and that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole,” id. (b)(2), and it further appearing that a district court which certifies a class “must make a factual determination, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that Rule 23’s requirements have been met,” Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 596 (3d Cir. 2012); see In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 316 (3d Cir. 2008) (“The court may delve beyond the pleadings to determine whether the requirements for class certification are satisfied.”); Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 166 (3d Cir. 2001) (“A class certification decision requires a thorough examination of the factual and legal allegations.”), and the court noting that allowing the parties time for discovery as to class certification may “be necessary for sound judicial administration,” Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 348 (3d Cir. 2004); see Inmates of Northumberland Cty. Prison v. Reish, No. 08-CV-345, 2008 WL 2412977, at *2-4 (M.D. Pa. June 11, 2008) (denying plaintiff’s motion for class certification and ordering class discovery), and that control of the discovery process is committed to its discretion, see In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prod. Liab. Litig., 264 F.3d 344, 365 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting
2

that the Court of Appeals reviews “questions concerning the scope or opportunity for discovery” for abuse of discretion), and the court finding that Hollihan asserts that “the class consists of scores, if not hundreds of inmates with serious eye conditions” and alludes broadly to the ocular infirmities of the aging prison population, (Doc. 3 at 11), but fails to adduce (1) evidence demonstrating that members of the putative class exist, or (2) a reasonable estimate of the class’s population, see Marcus, 687 F.3d at 596 (“[I]n the absence of direct evidence, a plaintiff must show sufficient circumstantial evidence specific to the . . . problems, parties, and geographic areas actually covered by the class definition to allow a district court to make a factual finding [regarding the identity and population of the putative class].”); Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 226-27 (3d Cir. 2001) (“[G]enerally if the named plaintiff demonstrates that the potential number of plaintiffs exceeds 40, the first prong of Rule 23(a) has been met.”); Reish, 2009 WL 8670860, at *15 (Mar. 17, 2009) (finding evidence regarding the pervasive nature of certain medical problems alleged in the suit sufficient to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1)), and the court concluding that, in light of the paucity of evidence undergirding the instant motion, it is unable to determine whether the requirements for class certification have been met, see Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160
3

(1982) (“[A]ctual, not presumed, conformance with Rule 23(a) remains . . .
indispensable.”), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motion (Doc. 2) for class certification is DENIED without prejudice.
2. Beginning on the date hereof, the parties shall be permitted to engage in discovery limited to the issue of class certification. Said discovery must be completed on or before November 20, 2015.
3. Plaintiff shall be permitted to file a motion for class certification following the close of class discovery. Any such motion shall be submitted on or before December 15, 2015.
4. Notwithstanding the directive set forth in paragraph 2, discovery in the above-captioned matter otherwise remains STAYED pending further order of court.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD HOLLIHAN,
Plaintiff & Putative Class Representative
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-5 : : (Chief Judge Conner) : : : : : : : :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 20th day of January, 2016, upon consideration of the motions
to dismiss filed by defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc., (Doc. 17), Drs. Rashida
Mahmud and John Robinson, (Doc. 28), and Dr. Donald Kern, (Doc. 42), and the
motion (Doc. 60) for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendants Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections, John Wetzel, and Bryan Hyde (collectively,
“Commonwealth defendants”), and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying
memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motion (Doc. 28) to dismiss filed by Dr. Rashida Mahmud and Dr. John Robinson and the motion (Doc. 60) for judgment on the pleadings filed by the Commonwealth defendants are GRANTED to the extent they seek dismissal of Counts III and IV of plaintiff Richard Hollihan’s (“Hollihan”) complaint (Doc. 1). The motions (Docs. 28, 60) are DENIED in all other respects.

2. The motions (Docs. 17, 42) to dismiss filed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc. and Dr. Donald Kern are DENIED.

3. Counts III and IV of Hollihan’s complaint (Doc. 1) are DISMISSED without prejudice. Hollihan is granted leave to file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this order that addresses the deficiencies described in the accompanying memorandum with respect to Counts III and IV. If Hollihan fails to file an amended pleading within that time, Counts III and IV shall be dismissed with prejudice.
4. In the absence of a timely filed amended complaint, the above-captioned action shall proceed on the remaining claims.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

 
 Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 21
Exhibit A

..
I •

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 2 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD HOLLIHAN,

Plaintiff,
vs. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.

Civil No. 3: 15-CV-00005-CCC Hon. Christopher C. Conner

Defendants.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE ("Settlement

Agreement" or "Agreement") fully sets forth the terms of the settlement by and between Plaintiff

Richard Hollihan ("Plaintiff') and Defendants Pennsylvania Department of Coll'ections, John E.

Wetzel, and Brian Hyde (collectively, the "DOC"), collectively referred to as the "Parties."

INTRODUCTION

WHEREAS, on January 2, 20 15, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, on behalf of himself

and inmates who are in the custody of the DOC, alleging, inter alia, that the DOC, under its

Cataract Policy, denies necessary surgical treatment to inmates with a severe eye disease in one

eye, but with another eye that provides some level of vision that DOC claims to be adequate, in

violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Americans with

Disabilities Act.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and the DOC, without conceding any infirmity in their

claims or defenses, and prior to conducting fonnal discovery, have engaged in extensive

settlement negotiations to resolve the claims raised in this litigation and recognize that it is in

their mutual best interest to fully resolve and finally settle any and all past, existing, and/or

' li39 :5R832 v8

'.
I'

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 3 of 21

potential claims between the Plaintiff and the DOC relating to the Cataract Policy.

WHEREAS, the DOC is entering into this Settlement Agreement for the purpose of settlement and nothing contained herein may be taken as or construed to be an admission or concession of any violation of law or regulation~ or of any other matter of fact m· law, or of any liability or wrongdoing (including allegations of the Complaint), all of which the DOC expressly denies. The DOC does not admit to any violation of law, and does not admit to any wrongdoing that was or could have been alleged by the Plaintiff before the Effective Date of this Agreement. No part of this Agreement~ including its statements and commitments, shall constitute evidence of any liability, fault, or wrongdoing by the DOC.

WHEREAS, this Agreement is not nor is it to be construed to be a Consent Decree and does not operate as an adjudication on the merits of the litigation. Actions taken or to be taken by the DOC hereunder are not admissions of liability on the prut of the DOC, but are undertaken in the spirit of compromise.

WHEREAS, this Agreement is made without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law or finding of wrongdoing or liability of any kind - it is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall not be binding or admissible in any other matter.

WHEREAS, it is also the intent of the Parties that no part of this Agreement shall create a private cause of action or confer any right to any third party for violation of any federal or state statute.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the Parties, as follows:

2
#39158832 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 4 of 21
I •
DEFINITIONS 1. As used in this Agreement, the following terms have the following meanings:
a. The "Cataract Policy" refers to the policy referenced in the Complaint as the "One Good Eye'' policy and which is presently titled as "Section 16 - Quality Improvement Plan- Chapter 4" in Appendix 16-B to 13.2.1, Access to Health Care Procedures Manual.
b. The "New Cataract Policy" will replace the "Cataract Policy" pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement and is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
c. The "Effective Date" means February 8, 2017. d. The "Affected Inmates" are inmates who are in the custody of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections and are diagnosed with a cataract in one or both eyes. e. The "Identified Affected Inmates" are Affected Inmates who were identified by
DOC during discovery as having been denied surgery under the Cataract Policy. The inmate numbers of the Identified Affected Inmates are reflected on Exhibit 2 (under seal). f. An "Announcement" of the New Cataract Policy shall state: "Attention inmates with cataracts (a clouding of the normally clear lens of the eye). DOC's cataract surgery policy has changed. Under the new policy, inmates may be eligible for cataract surgery whether or not they have good eyesight. Copies of the new cataract policy are available in medical facilities and in the library. For more information, please consult medical staff."
AGREEMENT
3
#3915883 2 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 5 of 21

In consideration of the mutual terms, covenants, conditions and releases of this

Settlement Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Replacement of the Cataract Policy.

No later than thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, the DOC shall replace the

Cataract Policy with the New Cataract Policy. Inmates are eligible for cataract surgery even if

an individual has one eye that does not meet the indications in the New Cataract Policy.

The DOC shall be responsible for informing its staff, correctional health care

provider, and outside medical providers of the New Cataract Policy.

2. Surgical Evaluation for Identified Affected Inmates.

Pursuant to the New Cataract Policy, DOC shall provide each Identified Affected

Inmate with a surgical evaluation by an ophthalmologist on a rolling basis and within 120 days

of the Effective Date and shall al1'ange treatment by an ophthalmologist for each Identified

Affected Inmate (including cataract surgery) in accordance with the ophthalmologist's

recommendation and the New Cataract Policy.

3. Notice to Inmates.

The DOC shall provide notice to all inmates of the New Cataract Policy by:

• Making an Announcement of the New Cataract Policy on one occasion at each DOC facility equipped with a prison-wide intercom within thilty (30) days after the Effective Date;

• Making regular audio and video Announcements of the New Cataract Policy at each DOC facility equipped with a CCTV system for a fourteen . (14) day period beginning thitty (30) days after the Effective Date;

• If a DOC facility has neither a prison-wide intercom nor a CCTV syste1i1,

DOC shall provide each irunate with an Announcement of the New

Cataract Policy by mail;

·

• Posting a copy of the New Cataract Policy in each medical facility accessible to inmates for a period of at least three (3) years; and

4
#39 158832 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 6 of 21
• Posting a copy of the New Cataract Policy in each library accessible to inmates for a period of at least three (3) years.
In addition, the DOC shall instruct medical staff to inform potential Affected Inmates of the New Cataract Policy.
4. Surgical Evaluation for Affected Inmates. DOC medical staff shall evaluate whether each Affected Inmate has one or more indications for cataract surgery and, where appropriate under the New Cataract Policy, provide Affected Inmates with a timely surgical evaluation by an ophthalmologist and anange for treatment for Affected Inmates (including cataract surgery). 5. Post-Operative Treatment. DOC must provide post-operative treatment for each inmate undergoing cataract surgery in accordance with the outside ophthalmologist's recommendation, including follow-up examinations, refraction for new glasses, and laser and surgical procedures to address any postoperative complications. 6. Monitoring Period. For a period of three (3) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the DOC shall provide Plaintiffs counsel with quarterly reports (for the first year) and bi-annual reports (years two and three). These reports shall include, at minimum: the names and inmate numbers of Affected Inmates; the date first diagnosed with one or more indications for cataract surgery; with the date seen by an optometrist or ophthalmologist; the name of the optometrist or ophthalmologist; whether the Affected Inmate was approved or denied for surgery; and the date of surgery. For any Affected Inmate denied surgery DOC shall, if requested, provide Plaintiffs counsel the inmate's medical records in accordance with the terms of the Protective
5
113915883 2 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 7 of 21
..
Order in this action within sixty (60) days ofthe request. 7. Notice and Comment to Future Changes to Cataract Policy. For a period of three (3) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the.
DOC shall provide Plaintiffs counsel with a copy of any proposed revisions or changes to the New Cataract Policy. Such proposed revisions or changes to the New Cataract Policy shall not be placed into effect without Plaintiffs counsel being given an oppmtunity to provide comments on the changes and, if invoked, until the conclusion of the Dispute Resolution procedure identified below.
8. Dispute Resolution. The Parties agree that Plaintiff's counsel has standing to raise disputes related to the DOC's compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the New Cataract Policy under the procedures identified herein. In the event that Plaintiffs counsel believes that the DOC has improperly denied an Affected Inmate medically necessary cataract surgery, failed to comply with the terms of this Settlement Agreement or the New Cataract Policy, or proposed revisions or changes to the New Cataract Policy which are inconsistent with the Settlement Agreement or the New Cataract Policy, Plaintiffs counsel will provide the DOC with a notice of potential non-compliance. This notice will identify, with patiicularity, the basis of the claim that the DOC is not in compliance and the specific material provision of the Settlement Agreement or New Cataract Policy that is implicated. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notification, the DOC will provide· a good-faith written response to the Plaintiffs notification with a full factual explanation as to why the DOC believes it is in compliance with the specified material provisions, or an explanation of
6
#39158832 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 8 of 21
the DOC,s plans to achieve full compliance with the specified material provisions. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days of DOCs
response, Plaintiffs counsel may seek intervention from the Comt by filing a motion for specific performance of the material provision identified through the aforementioned dispute resolution procedure. The Court may order specific performance of the material provision only upon a showing that the DOC is in substantial non-compliance with the material provision specified in the notice. The Comt may not entertain a motion for contempt, and the Court may not grant any remedial relief in the nature of a contempt of court finding against the DOC, unless the DOC fails to comply with an order of specific performance issued. by the Court.
9. DismissaL The Patties understand and agree that the Court will maintain jurisdiction of this civil action throughout the duration of the Agreement to enforce the provisions of the Agreement and that the Plaintiff may seek to enforce the Agreement, pursuant to Paragraph 8 above. The Patties also agree that upon termination of the Agreement they will sign and submit a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(a), thereby ending the Court's jurisdiction over this case. 10. No Admission of Liability. Neither this Settlement Agreement nor anything in this Settlement Agreement shall be deemed an admission or concession of liability or evidence respecting any liability on the pcut of Defendants Pemisylvania Department of Corrections, John E. Wetzel, and Brian Hyde, or an admission that any of Plaintiffs claims lack merit. Neither this Agreement nor any policies or procedures referenced herein, shall define any state or federal constitutional rights.
7
#391 58832 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 9 of 21
..·
11. Notices.
All notices required under the Agreement will be sent overnight mail or overnight
courier to the following people:
a. If to Plaintiff:
Thomas B. Schmidt, III PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
100 Market Street, Suite 200
P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, P A 17108~1181
and
Angus Love PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT The Cast Iron Building 718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South Philadelphia, PA 19106
b. If to Defendants:
Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Either patty may substitute the individual designated to receive notice by advising
the other side in a writing sent by overnight mail or overnight courier.
12. Payment to Plaintiff Richard Hollihan.
The DOC will pay the sum of Sixteen Thousand Five-Hundred Dollars ($
16,500), in full and complete satisfaction of any and all Plaintiff's claims, except for attomeys'
fees and litigation expenses. The p ayment shall be made by check within eight weeks of the full
execution of this agreement and delivered to Thomas B. Schmidt, ill, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP,
100 Market Street, Suite 200, P.O. Box 1181, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181. Plaintiff's counsel
will be responsible for remitting this sum to Plaintiff.
8
#39 15&&32 v&

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 10 of 21
13. Release. In consideration of the tetms and conditions called for herein, the Plaintiff releases and completely and forever discharges the DOC their agents, attorneys, servants, representatives, and employees, past and present, and their past, present and future agents, attorneys, servants, representatives, and employees and all other persons with whom any of the
. .
former have been, are now or may hereinafter be affiliated, of and from any and all past or present claims, demands, obligations, actions, causes of action, rights, damages, costs, expenses, and any claims for relief or punitive or other damages of any type which have accrued as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, and which relates to the subject matter of this civil action; provided, however, that this release does not affect Plaintiff's right to seek and recover attorneys' fees and reasonable expenses associated with the prosecution of this civil action. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Settlement Agreement may be construed as a release of Plaintiff's claims against Wexford Health Sources ("Wexford"), Dr. Rashi'cta Mahmud, Dr. John Robinson, Dr. Donald Kern, or any other past or present agent, attorney, servant, representative, or employee of Wexford.
.Plaintiff hereby acknowledges and agrees that this Release set fmth above is a general release, and Plaintiff expressly waives any and all claims as set forth above, except for attorneys' fees and expenses, or except of which the Plaintiff does not know or suspect to exist, whethel.· through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or otherwise, and which, if known, would materially affect the Plaintiff's decision to execute this Agreement.
14. Payment of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Plaintiffs counsel will file a petition for attorneys' fees and expenses. In the event of an award, the payment shall be made by check within eight weeks of the award and
9
#39 158832 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 11 of 21
delivered to Thomas B. Schmidt, Ill, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, 100 Market Street, Suite 200, P.O. Box 1181, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181. Plaintiffs counsel shall be responsible for making an appropriate division of these fees amongst themselves.
· Nothing in this· Settlement Agreement precludes Plaintiffs counsel from seeking attorneys' fees and costs for enforcement ofthe provisions ofthis Agreement.
15. Non-Wavier of Claims and Defenses as to Non-Parties. The Parties agree that by entering into this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff does not waive his rights to continue to pursue claims against any non-party to this Settlement Agreement. Furthermore, this Settlement Agreement does not waive any rights of other inmates in the custody of the DOC, including the Affected Inmates. 16. Integration Clause. The terms of this Settlement Agreement and its exhibits as written are the entire ag1;eement and there are no other terms relied upon by the Pm1ies, verbal or otherwise. 17. Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts by fax or email and interchangeably executed. Such execution shall be valid and binding upon the Parties and all counterparts when so executed and shall together be deemed one fmal original instrument. The Patties may rely on fax or email copies as if they were originals and such copies shall be equally admissible in evidence. 18. Captions. The captions and headings used throughout this Settlement Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be deemed to modify the meaning of any provisions of this Settlement Agreement.
10
#39158832 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 12 of 21
19. Written Modification. As permitted by law, this Settlement Agreement may be modified only by a written instrument signed by both the Parties. 20. Severability. If for any reason any provision of this Settlement Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall be constmed, performed or enforced as if the invalidated or unenforceable provision had not been included in the text of the Agreement. 21. Governing Laws. This Settlement Agreement shall be govemed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 22. Binding Effect. Except as provided elsewhere herein, this Settlement Agreement is binding upon the Parties and their respective agents, officers, directors, employees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns and successors-in-interest, regarding this action, CivifNo. 3:15-CV-00005-CCC. 23. Advice of Counsel. The Parties acknowledge that each has carefully read the entire Settlement Agreement, has been given the opp01iunity to consult with and be advised by their attomey, and knows and understands the contents of this Settlement Agreement. 24. Ambiguities. This Settlement Agreement has been reviewed by the Parties and their respective attorneys, and the Patiies have had a full opportunity to negotiate the contents of this Settlement Agreement. The Parties waive any common law or statutory rule of construction that
11
#39 158832 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 13 of 21 ambiguities should be construed against the drafter of this Settlement Agreement, and agree that the language in all pmis of this Settlement Agreement shall be in all cases construed as a whole, according to its fair and reasonable meaning.
25. Jurisdiction: Dispute Resolution. The Parties hereby consent to personal jurisdiction and venue in the United Stated District Couti for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, 'to resolve any dispute relating to the tenns of the Settlement Agreement or the obligations of the Parties under ·this Settlement Agreement. The Couti shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of the enforcement of tills Settlement Agreement.
12
li39 158832 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 14 of 21

f

_-.-

v'/... l .... ,s_;~

Dated: li%1Cft- r). 1 - , 2017

IT IS SO AGREED:

For Plaintiff:

As to Form:

PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Thomas B. Schmidt, III (PA 19196) 100 Market Street, Suite 200 P.O. Box 1181 Han·isburg, PA 171 08-1181 Tel: (717) 255-1155 Fax: (717) 238-0575 Email: schmidtt@pepperlaw.com
Jessica Rickabaugh (PA 200189) 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Tel: (215) 981-4000 Fax: (215) 981-4750 Email: rickabaughj@pepperlaw.com

KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING & FEINBERG LLP David Rudovsky (PA 15168) The Cast Iron Building 718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South Philadelphia, PA 191 06 Tel: (215) 925-4400 Fax: (215) 925-5365 Email: drudovsky@krlawphila.com
PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
Angus Love (PA 22392) The Cast Iron Building 718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 925-2966 Fax: (215) 925-5337 Email: alove@pailp.org

G. Richard Murphy (PA 306456) Suite 5000, 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2507 Tel: (412) 454-5000 Fax: (412) 281-.0717 Email: murphyg@pepperlaw.com

Alexandra Morgan-Kurtz (PA 312631) 100 Fifth Ave, Ste 900 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 434-6175 Email: amorgan-kurtz@pailp .org

Attorneysfor PlaintiffRichard Hollihan

13
n 91 58832 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 15 of 21
. .'
For the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections:

As to Form:

-

Jessica S. Davis (PA 94560) Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General 15111 Floor, Strawbeny Square Hanisborg, PA 17120 Phone (717) 783-1471 Fax (717) 772-4526 jdavis@attorneygeneral. gov

Counsel for Defendants Pennsylvania Department ofCorrections, John Wetzel, and Bryan Hyde.

14
#39 158832 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 16 of 21
EXHIBIT 1 New Cataract Policy
#39 158832 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 17 of 21

...

13.2.1, Access to Health Care Procedures Manual

Section 16- Quality Improvement Plan- Chapter 4

Appendix 16-B

Chapter 4- Cataract Surgery

Cataract surgery will be considered on an individual basis in accordance with this policy. Indications:

The patient must have one or more of the following indications for cataract surgery:
• Snellen visual acuity testing of 20/50 (or worse) despite corrective device(s) in either eye; or
• Potential for undetected retinal disease, which cannot be visualized due to the presence of cataract; or
• Hypermature cataract
Under this policy, inmates who have one of these three indications are eligible for cataract surgery. Inmates are eligible for cataract surgery even if an individual has one eye that does not meet the above indications.
Relative Contraindications:

An ophthalmologist will decide whether surgery is contraindicated, including whether:
• The patient is unable to undergo surgery because of coexisting medical or ocular · · conditions. • The patient does not desire surgery. • Surgery will not improve visual function.
Evaluation for Surgery

• For any patient diagnosed with a cataract, the patient will undergo a timely surgical evaluation by an outside ophthalmologist. (For purposes of this policy, "outside" includes ophthalmologists contracted through the DOC's medical provider to provide medical services to inmates incarcerated by the DOC.)
• If an outside ophthalmologist recommends that the patient undergq catatact surgery, and no aforementioned relative contraindications exist, DOC will arrange for the patient's cataract surgery in a timely fashion.
• f.\bsent extraordinary circumstances or necessary restrictions on patient travel, a surgical evaluation by an outside ophthalmologist shall be provided within ninety (90) days of the diagnosis of a cataract, and cataract surgery shall be provided ·within ninety (90) days of an outside ophthalmologist's recommendation.

Bilateral Extractions

To minimize the risk of bilateral vision loss cata ract surgery will not be performed on both eyes on the same day.
4- 1

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 18 of 21

·· ,·

13.2.1, Access to Health Care Procedures Manual

Section 16- Quality Improvement Plan- Chapter 4

Appendix 16-B

Patients and clinicians will require sufficient time to assess the results of the first eye surgery to determine the potential need and appropriate timing for surgery in the second eye.

4-1

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 19 of 21
.,. .
EXHIBIT 2 (UNDER SEAL) List of Identified Affected Inmates
#39 158832 v8

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 20 of 21
Exhibit B

Case 3:15-cv-00005-CCC Document 125-1 Filed 05/04/17 Page 21 of 21

Site Tools

Search Site

Home

AboutCLS

News + Events

Contact Us

Espanol

LEARN ABOUT ISSUES

GET HELP

MAKE A GIFT

......,.... About CLS I Attorney Fees

Overview History Our Impact .. Successes " Employment Opportunities Attorney Fees Annual Reports Board of Trustees Leadership Council .. Staff
CLSIIl:50
Diversity &Inclusion Stalement

Attorney Fees

Explanatory Notice to the Public
CLS never charges attorney's fees to its clients, although in some cases clients are asked to pay for court filing fees or other out of pocket expenses.
The attached chart lists the fee schedule used by CLS only in cases in which the law allows for the award of attorney's fees from opposing parties in order to compensate CLS for the legal services provided to its clients.
RANGE OF HOURLY RATES*, Effective February 15,2017

Attorneys post-law school experience under 2 years Attorneys 2-5 year's experience Attorneys 6-10 year's experience Attorneys 11-15 year's experience Attorneys 16-20 year's experience Attorneys 21-25 year's experience Attorneys more than 25 year's experience Law Students Paralegal I and II Senior and Supervisory Paralegal

$180-200 $220-255 $270-340 $360-440 $450-510 $520-570 $620-650 $90-145 $115-140 $140-165

*These rates do not reflect any adjustment for contingency, and are based on Philadelphia law firm market survey data and increases in the Consumer Price Index.
THESE FEES ARE NOT CHARGED TO CLS Q..IENTS. SEE NOTICE ABOVE.

C 2017 Community Legal Services of Philadelphia

Career Opportunities I Legal Disclaimer

Connect with us:

Center City Office: 1424 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102

North Philadelphia Office: 1410 W. Erie Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19140

 
 Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP CASREF,CLOSED,COMPLEX,CONFDOC,PRISNR,PROTO,REFER,SETOFF,SETOFFS
United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania (Scranton) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15-cv-00005-CCC

Hollihan v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner Referred to: Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Settlement) Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 01/02/2015 Date Terminated: 02/08/2017 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Richard Hollihan

represented by David Rudovsky Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing & Feinberg, LLP 718 Arch Street Suite 501 South Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-925-4400 Fax: 215-925-5365 Email: drudovsky@krlawphila.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric J. Rothschild Pepper Hamilton LLP 3000 Two Logan Square 18th & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 (215) 981-4813 Email: rothsche@pepperlaw.com TERMINATED: 09/13/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Wolfish Pepper Hamilton, LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799

215-981-4923 Email: wolfishe@pepperlaw.com TERMINATED: 08/08/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janine P. Yaniak 3000 Two Logan Square 18th & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-981-4810 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica A. Rickabaugh Tucker Law Group Ten Penn Center 1801 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-982-2278 Email: jrickabaugh@tlgattorneys.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Schmidt , III Pepper Hamilton, LLP Suite 200, 100 Market Streets P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181 717-255-1164 Email: thomas.schmidt@troutman.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra T Morgan-Kurtz PA Institutional Law Project 100 Fifth Ave Suite 900 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 412-434-6175 Email: amorgan-kurtz@pailp.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Defendant John Wetzel Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Defendant Bryan Hyde Correctional Health Care Administrator

Angus R. Love PO Box 521 Narberth, PA 19072 215-435-6345 Email: Anguslove76@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Caleb Curtis Enerson PA Office of Attorney General 15th Floor Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-705-5774 Email: cenerson@attorneygeneral.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica S. Davis Office of Attorney General 15th Floor Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-1471 Email: jdavis@attorneygeneral.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Caleb Curtis Enerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica S. Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Caleb Curtis Enerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica S. Davis

Defendant Dr. Rashida Mahmud
Defendant Dr. John Robinson

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David J. Rosenberg Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby LLP 4 PPG Place 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 412-281-4541 Email: drosenberg@wglaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael C Hamilton 4 PPG Place 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 412-281-4541 Email: mhamilton@wglaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula A. Koczan 4 PPG Place 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 281-4541 Email: pkoczan@wglaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel H. Foreman Weber, Gallagher, Simpson, Stapleton, Fires & Newby, LLP Four PPG Place 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 281-4541 Fax: (412) 281-4547 Email: sforeman@wglaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David J. Rosenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
Defendant Dr. Donald Kern

Michael C Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula A. Koczan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel H. Foreman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David J. Rosenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael C Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula A. Koczan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel H. Foreman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David J. Rosenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael C Hamilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula A. Koczan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel H. Foreman

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/02/2015 01/08/2015 01/08/2015 01/09/2015 01/13/2015 01/22/2015 01/28/2015 01/29/2015 02/04/2015
02/04/2015
02/04/2015 02/04/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $400, Receipt Number 0314-3316013), filed by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(lh) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Sent Petition for Special Admission and ECF Registration form to Eric Wolfish. (lh) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
2 MOTION to Certify Class by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
SPECIAL ADMISSION FORM and ECF REGISTRATION SENT to Attorney Eric Wolfish. (ch1) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Case assigned to Judge Conner. (kc) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
3 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 2 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Richard Hollihan.(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Paula A. Koczan on behalf of Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Koczan, Paula) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
SPECIAL ADMISSION FORM emailed to Paula Koczan (lg) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
5 PETITION FOR SPECIAL ADMISSION (PRO HAC VICE) by Michael C Hamilton on behalf of Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Attorney Michael Hamilton is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314-3345595.. (Hamilton, Michael) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
6 PETITION FOR SPECIAL ADMISSION (PRO HAC VICE) by Paula A. Koczan on behalf of Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Attorney Paula Koczan is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314-3345618.. (Koczan, Paula) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael C Hamilton on behalf of Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Hamilton, Michael) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
8 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM APPROVED as to Michael C. Hamilton (eo) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/04/2015 02/04/2015 02/04/2015 02/11/2015
02/27/2015 02/27/2015
03/10/2015 03/11/2015 03/17/2015 03/17/2015 03/24/2015

9 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM APPROVED as to Paula A. Koczan (eo) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Michael C. Hamilton is verified as active with the PA state bar. (lh) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Paula Ann Koczan is active with the PA state bar. (lh) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
10 Summons Issued as to All Defendants and provided TO ATTORNEY ELECTRONICALLY VIA ECF for service on Defendant(s)in the manner prescribed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (NOTICE TO ATTORNEYS RECEIVING THE SUMMONS ELECTRONICALLY: You must print the summons and the attachment when you receive it in your e-mail and serve them with the complaint on all defendants in the manner prescribed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). (Attachments: # 1 Summons Packet) (pjr) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Jessica S. Davis on behalf of Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel (Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by John Wetzel, Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. John Wetzel served on 1/26/2015, answer due 2/17/2015; Bryan Hyde served on 1/26/2015, answer due 2/17/2015; Pennsylvania Department of Corrections served on 1/26/2015, answer due 2/17/2015. (Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Angus R. Love on behalf of Richard Hollihan (Love, Angus) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Alexandra T Morgan-Kurtz on behalf of Richard Hollihan. (Morgan-Kurtz, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/11/2015)
15 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned by Richard Hollihan. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. waiver sent on 1/23/2015, answer due 3/24/2015. (Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
16 CERTIFICATE of Service by Richard Hollihan re 3 Brief in Support, 2 MOTION to Certify Class . (Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
17 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Wexford Health Sources, Inc..(Koczan, Paula) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015 03/27/2015 03/27/2015 03/30/2015 03/30/2015 04/07/2015 04/07/2015 04/10/2015 04/10/2015 04/16/2015 04/16/2015

18 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 17 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc..(Koczan, Paula) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
19 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel.(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
20 MOTION for Extension of Time to to file Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel.(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
21 ORDER granting Commonwealth deft' motion for ext of time 19 to file answer to complaint until 5/4/2015. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/30/15. (ki) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
22 ORDER granting Commonwealth deft' motion for ext of time 20 to file brief in opp to pltf's motion for class certification until 5/4/15. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/30/15. (ki) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
23 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 17 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Richard Hollihan.(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
24 ATTACHMENT(S) Unpublished Opinions by Richard Hollihan re 23 Brief in Opposition, filed by Richard Hollihan. Related document: 23 Brief in Opposition filed by Richard Hollihan.(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael C Hamilton on behalf of Rashida Mahmud, John Robinson (Hamilton, Michael) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Paula A. Koczan on behalf of Rashida Mahmud, John Robinson (Koczan, Paula) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
27 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 2 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Rashida Mahmud, John Robinson, Wexford Health Sources, Inc..(Hamilton, Michael) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
28 MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Rashida Mahmud, John Robinson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hamilton, Michael) (Entered: 04/16/2015)

04/16/2015 04/20/2015 04/20/2015 04/30/2015
04/30/2015
04/30/2015
05/01/2015 05/01/2015 05/01/2015 05/04/2015 05/04/2015 05/04/2015

29 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 28 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Rashida Mahmud, John Robinson.(Hamilton, Michael) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
30 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned - Rashida Mahmud waiver sent on 4/15/2015, answer due 6/15/2015. (pjr) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
31 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned - John Robinson waiver sent on 4/15/2015, answer due 6/15/2015. (pjr) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
32 REPLY BRIEF re 2 MOTION to Certify Class (PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION) filed by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinions)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
33 DECLARATION by Richard Hollihan re 32 Reply Brief (DECLARATION OF ERIC S. WOLFISH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
34 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 28 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinions)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
35 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael C Hamilton on behalf of Donald Kera (Hamilton, Michael) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
36 NOTICE of Appearance by Paula A. Koczan on behalf of Donald Kera (Koczan, Paula) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
37 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned by Richard Hollihan. Donald Kera waiver sent on 4/17/2015, answer due 6/16/2015. (Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
SPECIAL ADMISSION FORM emailed to Attorney Michael C. Hamilton (lg) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
SPECIAL ADMISSION FORM emailed to Attorney Paula Koczan (lg) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Attorney Hamilton and Attorney Koczan have already been specially admitted in this case; no further paperwork required. (lg) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

05/04/2015
05/04/2015 05/04/2015 05/18/2015 06/03/2015 06/10/2015 06/16/2015 06/16/2015 06/17/2015 06/17/2015

38 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/17/2015 @ 10:00 AM - placement of the telephone conference call is the responsibility of the plaintiff. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/4/15. (ki) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
39 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B)(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
40 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 2 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel.(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
41 REPLY by Richard Hollihan. to 40 Brief in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A - Unpublished Opinions)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
42 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Donald Kera.(Koczan, Paula) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
43 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A-1 Stipulation and Order Regarding Confidentiality, # 2 Exhibit(s) A-2 Confidentiality Stipulation)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
44 BRIEF IN SUPPORT SUPPLEMENT re 42 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Donald Kera, Rashida Mahmud, John Robinson, Wexford Health Sources, Inc..(Koczan, Paula) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
45 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 42 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM SUPPLEMENT filed by Donald Kera, Rashida Mahmud, John Robinson, Wexford Health Sources, Inc..(Koczan, Paula) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
47 ORDER re: Stipulation 43 -1 of parties - It is hereby ORDERED that the Stipulation of the parties set forth above is hereby entered as an order of the court. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 6/17/15. (ki) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
48 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER (COMPLEX TRACK) - Sets forth case management instructions, guidelines & pretrial/trial schedule, inc. - Fact Discovery due by 3/17/2016; Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/19/2016 @ 10:00 AM in Harrisburg - Jury Room #2; Jury Selection & Jury Trial set for 11/7/2016 @ 09:30 AM in Harrisburg - Courtroom 2 before Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner; Dispositive Motions due

06/26/2015 06/26/2015 06/26/2015 06/29/2015 06/30/2015 07/06/2015
07/07/2015

by 6/17/2016; Motions in Limine due by 9/8/16; Pretrial Memos due by noon on 10/12/2016. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 6/17/15. (ki) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
49 ORDER directing deft Dr. Kern to file brief in supp of motion to dismiss 42 w/in 7 days of date of this order, noting failure to file br in supp may result in court deeming motion to dismiss withdrawn. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 6/26/15. (ki) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
50 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 42 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Donald Kera.(Hamilton, Michael) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
51 Letter from Defendants' Counsel - Jessica S. Davis, DAG requesting a teleconference to resolve a dispute. (Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
52 ORDER REFERRING discovery matter re: letter 51 from cnsl for defts to Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab for resolution. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 6/29/15. (ki) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
53 REPLY BRIEF re 17 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 2 MOTION to Certify Class , 28 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Consolidated Response To Supplemental Briefs filed by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Unpublished Opinion(s))(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
54 VERBAL ORDER: A telephonic conference is scheduled for July 21, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff shall initiate the call by contacting Chambers at (717) 221-3980 once all parties and participants are on the line. In the event that the parties and participants agree that the conference should be rescheduled, we ask that a joint letter be filed on the Docket formally making such a request. In addition, the joint letter shall include a list of several dates and times when all parties and participants are available for conferencing in order to avoid having to reschedule the conference on multiple occasions.Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab on 07/06/15. (ma) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
55 Letter from Jessica S. Davis, DAG to Hon. Susan E. Schwab re rescheduling of 7/21/15 telephone conference . (Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 07/07/2015)

07/10/2015 07/14/2015
07/15/2015 07/16/2015
07/17/2015 07/17/2015 07/17/2015 07/21/2015
07/31/2015

56 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 42 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Richard Hollihan.(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
57 VERBAL ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that on or before July 15, 2015, defense counsel shall file a letter on the Docket providing the Court with a list of dates and times that work for all parties so as to avoid having to reschedule the discovery conference again. Issued by Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab on July 14, 2015. (kjn) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
58 Letter from Jessica S. Davis, DAG to Hon. Susan Schwab re Additonal Dates . (Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
59 VERBAL SCHEDULING ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the upcoming telephonic discovery conference is RESCHEDULED for July 31, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff shall initiate the call by contacting Chambers at (717) 221-3980 once all parties are on the line. Issued by Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab on July 16, 2015. (kjn) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
60 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
61 MOTION to Stay Discovery by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
62 BRIEF IN SUPPORT of Commonwealth Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery re 61 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel.(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
63 ORDER granting defts' motion to stay discovery 61 , STAYING discovery pending disposition of motion for class certification 2 & motions 17 , 28 , 42 & 60 , & noting pretrial & trial schedule shall issue upon resolution of said motions. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 7/21/15. (ki) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
64 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 60 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A)(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 07/31/2015)

08/03/2015 08/07/2015 08/07/2015 08/14/2015 08/14/2015 08/18/2015
08/21/2015 08/24/2015
09/09/2015

65 ORDER: On or before 8/7/15, the parties shall file letter briefs, citing to any relevant evidence and proper authority, reiterating their positions regarding the pending discovery dispute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab on 08/03/15. (ma) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
67 Letter from Eric S. Wolfish to The Honorable Susan E. Schwab. (Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
68 Letter from Jessica S. Davis, DAG to the Honorable Susan E. Schwab re DOC Cataract Policy . (Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
69 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to FILE OPPOSITION TO THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
70 ORDER granting pltf's motion for ext of time 69 to file brief in opp to Comm defts' motion for judgment on the pleadings until 8/21/14 w/ Comm deft's reply due by 9/9/15. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 8/14/15. (ki) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
VERBAL ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that a telephonic conference is scheduled for August 24, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. Plaintiffs shall initiate the call by contacting Chambers at (717) 221-3980 once all parties and participants are on the line. In the event that any party needs to reschedule, a letter shall be filed on the Docket providing us with good cause as to why the conference should be rescheduled in addition to a proposed list of alternative dates and times to which all parties and participants are available. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab on 8/18/2015. (ktt) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
71 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 60 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinion(s))(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
73 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the defendants have failed to show good cause for keeping the Department of Corrections policy regarding cataract surgery confidential. The Department of Corrections has not carried its burden of demonstrating that disclosure of this policy will cause a clearly defined and serious injury. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab on 8/24/2015. (ktt) (Entered: 08/24/2015)
74 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania

09/10/2015
09/16/2015 09/17/2015 09/18/2015
09/23/2015 09/24/2015 12/22/2015 12/23/2015

Department of Corrections, John Wetzel.(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
75 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Defendants motion for an extension of time 74 is GRANTED. Defendants shall file a reply brief in support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings on or before September 16, 2015. The reply brief must conform to the requirements of Local Rule 7.8. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab on 9/10/2015. (ktt) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
76 REPLY BRIEF re 60 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel.(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
77 Unreported Decisions to Reply Brief Filed (Doc. 76) by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel. 76 Reply Brief . (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinion(s))(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
78 ORDER denying motion for class certification 2 w/out prejudice, permitting parties to engage in discoery limited to issue of class beginning on date hereof & to be completed by 11/20/15, permitting pltf to file motion for class certification following close of class discovery & on or before 12/15/15, & noting notw/standing directive in Para 2 discovery in matter otherwise remains STAYED pending further order of court. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/18/15. (ki) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
79 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Class Discovery by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel.(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
80 ORDER granting Commonwealth defts' motion for ext of time 79 tocomplete class discovery until 12/21/15 & pltf's deadline to file motion for class certification ext'd to 1/22/16. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/24/15. (See order for complete details.) (ki) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
82 Letter from Jessica S. Davis, DAG to Hon. Christopher C. Conner re Class Discovery . (Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
83 ORDER granting construed motion for ext of time 82 to file proposed revised class discovery deadlines until 12/28/15. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/23/15. (ki) (Entered: 12/23/2015)

12/28/2015 12/28/2015 12/30/2015 01/04/2016 01/20/2016
01/20/2016
02/04/2016 02/08/2016

84 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Proposed Order by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel.(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 12/28/2015)
85 ORDER granting the mtn for exttm 84 . The parties shall file a proposed order setting forth revised class discovery deadlines on or before 12/30/15.Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/28/15. (ma) (Entered: 12/28/2015)
86 Proposed Pretrial Order Jointly Submitted for Class Discovery Deadlines by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel. (Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
87 ORDER setting schedule for parties to conduct class discovery. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/4/16. (ki) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
88 MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re: 60 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel, Bryan Hyde, 17 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 42 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Dr. Donald Kern, 28 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by John Robinson, Rashida Mahmud. (See memo for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/20/16. (ki) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
89 ORDER (Memorandum 88 filed previously as separate docket entry). It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. MTD 28 by Drs. Mahmud & Robinson & mot for jdgmt on pleadings 60 by Comm defts GRANTED to extent they seek dismissal of Cts III & IV of Hollihan's complaint & DENIED in all other respects.; 2. MTDs 17 & 42 by Wexford & Dr. KERN DENIED.; 3. Cts III & IV of Hollihan's complaint DISMISSED w/out prejudice & Hollihan granted leave to file amended complaint w/in 20 days of date of this order.... (see Para 3 for specifics).;l 4. In absence of timely filed amended complaint action shall proceed on remaining claims. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/20/16. (ki) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
90 Joint MOTION to Stay PRETRIAL DEADLINES by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
91 ORDER granting joint motion to stay pretrial deadlines 90 pending conclusion of settlement negotiations & directing cnsl to submit report

advising ct of status of settlement negotiations by 4/8/16 w/ successive status reports every 60 days thereafter. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/8/16. (ki) (Entered: 02/08/2016)

04/19/2016

92 STATUS REPORT of 4/8/16 filed by counsel for plaintiff Richard Hollihan. (ki) (Entered: 04/19/2016)

04/19/2016

93 MOTION to Lift Stay re 92 Status Report, 91 Order on Motion to Stay, by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 04/19/2016)

04/20/2016

94 ORDER denying Hollihan's motion to partially lift stay 93 & directing cnsl for all parties to file joint status rpt advising court of status of settlement negotiations by 6/7/16. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 4/20/16. (ki) (Entered: 04/20/2016)

06/07/2016 95 STATUS REPORT (SECOND SETTLEMENT STATUS REPORT) by Richard Hollihan. (Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

08/03/2016

96 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Motion for Leave to Withdraw Appearance of Eric Wolfish as Counsel for Plaintiff) by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 08/03/2016)

08/08/2016 97 STATUS REPORT (Third Settlement Status Report) by Richard Hollihan. (Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016

98 ORDER granting pltf's motion to w/draw appearance of Eric Wolfish, Esquire 96 as cnsl for pltf Richard Hollihan. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 8/8/16. (ki) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

09/07/2016

99 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Eric Rothschild, counsel for Plaintiff) by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 09/07/2016)

09/13/2016

100 ORDER granting motion for leave to w/draw 99 appearance of Atty Eric Rothschild as cnsl for pltf. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/13/16. (ki) (Entered: 09/13/2016)

09/29/2016 101 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice - Attorney Jessica A. Rickabaugh is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314-

3883036. by Richard Hollihan.(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 09/29/2016)

09/29/2016

DOCKET ANNOTATION: Verified Jessica Rickabaugh is active with the PA state bar. (lh) (Entered: 09/29/2016)

09/30/2016

102 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM APPROVED as to Jessica Rickabaugh, Esquire. Motions terminated: 101 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice - Attorney Jessica A. Rickabaugh.Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/30/16. (ki) (Entered: 09/30/2016)

10/07/2016 103 STATUS REPORT (FOURTH SETTLEMENT STATUS REPORT) by Richard Hollihan. (Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

12/06/2016 104 STATUS REPORT (FIFTH SETTLEMENT STATUS REPORT) by Richard Hollihan. (Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 12/06/2016)

01/17/2017

105 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson for purposes of Settlement Conference only. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/17/17. (ki) (Entered: 01/17/2017)

01/24/2017

106 SCHEDULING ORDER: A Settlement Conference set for 2/7/2017 at 1:00 PM in Harrisburg before Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on January 24, 2017. (kjn) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

01/24/2017

107 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Prosequendum Issued as to Richard Hollihan for February 7, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carlson on January 24, 2017. (kjn) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

01/24/2017

108 NOTICE of Appearance by Samuel H. Foreman on behalf of Dr. Donald Kern, Rashida Mahmud, John Robinson, Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Foreman, Samuel) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

01/24/2017

109 NOTICE of Appearance by David J. Rosenberg on behalf of Dr. Donald Kern, Rashida Mahmud, John Robinson, Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Rosenberg, David) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

02/06/2017 110 STATUS REPORT [Sixth Settlement Status Report] by Richard Hollihan. (Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 02/06/2017)

02/08/2017

112 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Policy Revision proceedings held on 2/7/2017 before Magistrate Judge Carlson. Court Reporter Wendy Yinger, Telephone number 717-4401535. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release

of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/1/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/13/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/9/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)) (ctrep7) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/08/2017

113 ORDER DISMISSING CASE - It is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed w/out costs & w/out prejudice, upon good cause shown, w/in 120 days, to reinstate action if settlement is not consummated. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/8/17. (ki) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/10/2017

114 ORDER re: 2/8/17 order 113 dismissing action - Petitions for atty's fees shall be filed by 3/3/17 w/ failure to file by dd to result in ct deeming issue w/drawn, responses to petitions to be submitted by 3/31/17 & reply briefs may be filed by 4/14/17. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/10/17. (ki) (Entered: 02/10/2017)

03/03/2017

115 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit(s) (Table of Contents of Exhibits), # 3 Exhibit(s) (1) Schmidt Declaration, # 4 Exhibit(s) (2) Love Declaration, # 5 Exhibit(s) (3) Morgan-Kurtz Declaration, # 6 Exhibit(s) (4) Rudovsky Declaration, # 7 Certificate of Service)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/03/2017

116 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 115 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 2 Certificate of Service)(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/10/2017

117 WITHDRAWN (on praecipe 120 on 3/20/17) - MOTION to Compel Court's January 24, 2017 Order Requiring Plaintiff's Transfer to the State Correctional Institution at Somerset by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Schmidt, Thomas) Modified on 3/28/2017 (ki). (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

118 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 117 MOTION to Compel Court's January 24, 2017 Order Requiring Plaintiff's Transfer to the State Correctional Institution at Somerset filed by Richard Hollihan.(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/17/2017 119 Letter from Richard Hollihan re transfer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (dmn) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/17/2017

120 PRAECIPE to Withdraw 117 MOTION to Compel Court's January 24, 2017 Order Requiring Plaintiff's Transfer to the State Correctional Institution at Somerset by Richard Hollihan.(Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

03/28/2017

121 MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Response to the Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Davis, Jessica) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

03/30/2017

122 ORDER granting Commonwealth defts' motion for ext of time 121 to file response to petition for attys' fees & costs until 4/21/17. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/30/17. (ki) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

04/19/2017

123 NOTICE of Appearance by Caleb Curtis Enerson on behalf of Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel (Enerson, Caleb) (Entered: 04/19/2017)

04/20/2017

124 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 115 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Bryan Hyde, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinion(s))(Enerson, Caleb) (Entered: 04/20/2017)

05/04/2017

125 REPLY BRIEF re 115 MOTION for Attorney Fees /Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of the Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Cost. filed by Richard Hollihan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A-B, # 2 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 3 Certificate of Service)(Rickabaugh, Jessica) (Entered: 05/04/2017)

06/16/2017

126 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Fewer than All Defendants by Dr. Donald Kern, Rashida Mahmud, John Robinson, Wexford Health Sources, Inc.. (Foreman, Samuel) (Entered: 06/16/2017)

01/18/2018

127 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Hearing on motion 115 for attys' fees & costs for 2/26/2018 @ 10:00 AM in Harrisburg - Courtroom 1 w/ ct to accept testimony from 3rd-party attys & evid as to what relevant community is & directing cnsl to exchange @ least 5 days prior to hearing any docs not of record that cnsl plan to intro into evidence. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/18/18. (ki) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

02/08/2018

128 ORDER REFERRING CASE for Purposes of Settlement Only to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/8/18. (ki) (Entered: 02/08/2018)

02/09/2018

Set Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 2/15/2018 at 1:00 PM in Harrisburg before Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson. (kjn) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/15/2018

129 SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 2/23/2018 at 1:00 PM in Harrisburg before Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson. See Order for complete details.Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on 2/15/2018. (ktt) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/22/2018

130 PETITION FOR SPECIAL ADMISSION (PRO HAC VICE) by Thomas B. Schmidt, III on behalf of Richard Hollihan Attorney Janine Yaniak is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314-4346414.. (Schmidt, Thomas) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

02/26/2018

132 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM APPROVED as to Janine P. Yaniak, Esquire.Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/23/18. (ki) (Entered: 02/26/2018)

02/26/2018

133 ORDER dismissing motion for attys' fees & costs 115 as MOOT & CANCELLING hearing set for today. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/26/18. (ki) (Entered: 02/26/2018)

03/30/2018 134 Letter to Court from Plaintiff re case. (aaa) (Entered: 03/30/2018)

04/05/2018

135 ORDER re: correpondence 134 from Robert Santillo - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Clrk of Ct directed to fwd copy of Santillo's correspondence to cnsl for both parties...; 2. Clrk of Ct directed to fwd copy of this order to Santillo. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 4/5/18. (ki) (Entered: 04/05/2018)

04/05/2018

DOCKET ANNOTATION: Doc 135 deleted & re-docketed, due to docketing error. (ki) (Entered: 04/05/2018)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

04/02/2021 17:04:19

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 14

Cost:

Exempt flag: Not Exempt

Exempt reason:

Leake
3:15-cv-00005CCC 1.40
Not Exempt