UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BRUCE KREITMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: _______________

THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, an agency of the State 

of Florida,

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, 

INC., a Florida corporation, 

CORIZON, LLC, an out-of-state 

corporation registered and doing 

business in Florida, and

CENTURION OF FLORIDA, LLC, a 

Florida limited liability company,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, Bruce Kreitman, by and through the undersigned counsel, 

hereby sues the Florida Department of Corrections (“FDC”), Wexford Health 

SOURCES, Inc. (“Wexford”), Corizon, LLC (“Corizon”), and Centurion of Florida, 

LLC (“Centurion”) (collectively, the “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil rights action for monetary damages. Plaintiff was an 

inmate incarcerated in Defendant FDC’s prison system from June 2013 through his 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 32
2

release on July 24, 2020. Plaintiff is suing Defendants for deliberating depriving him 

of medically necessary treatment for hepatitis C. Specifically, Plaintiff sues 

Defendant FDC for discriminating against him on the basis of disability in violation 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”)

and Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and Centurion for their deliberate indifference to 

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United 

States Constitution.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the 

United States.

3. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee 

Division, as Defendant FDC is headquartered with its principle place of business in 

Tallahassee, Florida and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to 

Plaintiffs claims occurred in the Northern District of Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

4. The claims alleged herein are brought within the applicable statute of 

limitations.

5. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent, if any, prior to the 

filing this action.

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 32
3

THE PARTIES

6. Plaintiff was incarcerated by Defendant FDC from June 17, 2013, until 

July 24, 2020. Throughout his incarceration, Plaintiff has been housed at numerous

prisons owned and operated by Defendant FDC, including South Florida Reception 

Center (“SFRC”), Charlotte Correctional Institution (“Charlotte CI”), Desoto 

Correctional Institution (“Desoto CI”), Hardee Correctional Institution (“Hardee 

CI”), Northwest Florida Reception Center (“NWFRC”), Marion Correctional 

Institution (“Marion CI”), Columbia Correctional Institution (“Columbia CI”), 

Reception and Medical Center (“RMC”), and Hamilton Correctional Institution 

(“Hamilton CI”). Plaintiff was denied treatment for his HCV at every correctional 

facility he was housed.

7. Defendant FDC is an agency of the State of Florida that owns and 

operates correctional facilities throughout the State, including every prison where 

Plaintiff was housed and denied treatment for his HCV throughout his incarceration, 

and receives federal funds to operate its agency. Defendant FDC is headquartered in 

Tallahassee, Florida. Defendant FDC is responsible for the medical care of all 

individuals confined in its prison system. Further, Defendant FDC is responsible for 

overseeing the operations of its contractors, including Defendants Wexford, 

Corizon, and Centurion. Defendant FDC discriminated against Plaintiff—a qualified 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 3 of 32
4

individual with a disability due to his infection with chronic HCV—by deliberately 

depriving treatment for his chronic HCV.

8. Defendant Wexford is a Florida corporation and provider of 

correctional healthcare services. From December 2012 until June 2017, Defendant 

Wexford contracted with FDC to provide healthcare services to inmates confined in 

FDC prisons generally located in South Florida, including SFRC, Charlotte CI, 

Desoto CI, and Hardee CI, where Plaintiff was housed and denied treatment for his 

HCV. From December 2012 until approximately June 2017, Defendant Wexford 

was responsible with FDC for Plaintiff’s medical care. 

9. Defendant Corizon is an out-of-state corporation, registered and doing 

business in Florida. From October 2012 until May 2016, Defendant Corizon

contracted with FDC to provide healthcare services to inmates confined in FDC 

prisons not covered under Defendant Wexford’s contract, including NWFRC, 

Marion CI, and RMC, where Plaintiff was housed and denied treatment for his HCV.

From October 2012 until May 2016, Defendant Corizon was responsible with FDC 

for Plaintiff’s medical care.

10. Defendant Centurion is a Florida limited liability company and 

provider of correctional healthcare services. In February 2016, Defendant Centurion 

contracted with FDC to provide healthcare services to inmates confined in FDC 

prisons, including Marion CI, Columbia CI, RMC, and Hamilton CI, where Plaintiff 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 4 of 32
5

was housed and denied treatment for HCV. In May 2016, Defendant Centurion took 

over as FDC’s healthcare vendor for the prisons previously covered under Corizon’s 

contract. Following the termination of Wexford’s contract in June 2017, Defendant 

Centurion became FDC’s sole healthcare provider. Since May 2016, Defendant 

Centurion has been responsible with FDC for Plaintiff’s medical care.

11. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant FDC had a non-delegable duty 

to provide constitutionally-adequate medical care to all prisoners in Florida.

FACTS

Background Information on Hepatitis C

12. Hepatitis C is a blood borne disease caused by the hepatitis C virus 

(“HCV”). The virus causes inflammation that damages liver cells and is a leading 

cause of liver disease and liver transplants. 

13. HCV can be either acute or chronic. In people with acute HCV, the 

virus will spontaneously clear itself from the blood stream within six months of 

exposure. Chronic HCV, on the other hand, is defined as having a detectable HCV 

viral level in the blood at some point six months after exposure. Fifty (50) to eighty 

(80) percent of infected people will develop chronic HCV.

14. Liver inflammation caused by chronic HCV can significantly impair 

liver function and damage its crucial role in digesting nutrients, filtering toxins from 

the blood, fighting infection, and conducting other metabolic processes in the body. 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 5 of 32
6

Liver inflammation can also cause fatigue, weakness, muscle wasting, skin rashes, 

and arthritis.

15. People with chronic HCV develop fibrosis of the liver, a process by 

which healthy liver tissue is replaced with scarring. When scar tissue begins to take 

over most of the liver, this extensive fibrosis is termed cirrhosis. Scar tissue cannot 

perform the job of normal liver cells, so fibrosis reduces liver function and results in 

the same symptoms mentioned above, but with greater intensity. Fibrosis can also 

lead to liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer).

16. The amount of liver scarring a patient has is usually measured on the 

METAVIR scale. On this scale, a person can be classified F0 (no fibrosis), F1 (mild 

fibrosis), F2 (moderate fibrosis), F3 (severe fibrosis), or F4 (cirrhosis).

17. Among those with chronic HCV, the majority will develop progression 

liver disease and approximately 20% will develop cirrhosis in a 20-year timeframe. 

Patients with rapid fibrosis liver progression may reach cirrhosis within as short a 

timeframe as one year.

18. Cirrhosis causes additional painful complications, including 

widespread itching, kidney disease, jaundice, fluid retention with edema, internal 

bleeding, varices (enlarged veins that develop in the esophagus or intestines, which 

can burst), easy bruising, ascites (fluid accumulation in the legs and abdomen), 

encephalopathy (mental confusion and disorientation), lymph disorders, increased 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 6 of 32
7

risk of infection, seizures, and extreme fatigue. Most of these complications can 

occur before cirrhosis. If they go untreated, some can cause death, often from 

infection, bleeding, and fluid accumulation.

19. Abdominal ascites can require paracentesis, a procedure wherein a 

needle is inserted into the abdomen to drain the fluid. Without this periodic 

procedure, the fluid accumulation can decrease the available space for the patient’s 

lungs, thus causing shortness of breath and difficulty breathing.

20. Moreover, once an HCV patient’s liver has cirrhosis, it may not be 

reversible. Some patients with cirrhosis may have too much scar tissue in the liver, 

even if the liver can heal to some degree once the virus is eliminated by treatment. 

If scar tissue persists, the patient may still experience the complications of cirrhosis, 

including liver cancer.

21. Chronic HCV is, as a matter of law, a serious medical need. See 

Mitchell v. Nobles, 878 F.3d 869, 876 (11th Cir. 2017).

22. Plaintiff’s disabling condition was chronic HCV. In other words, 

Plaintiff’s “disability” was chronic HCV, as defined under the ADA and RA.

General Prevalence of HCV

23. Approximately 2.7 to 3.9 million Americans have chronic HCV.

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 7 of 32
8

24. In 2000, the United States Surgeon General called HCV a “silent 

epidemic,” and estimated that as much as two percent of the adult U.S. population 

had HCV.

25. In 2013, HCV caused more deaths than sixty other infectious diseases 

combined, including HIV, pneumococcal disease, and tuberculosis.

26. Approximately 19,000 people die of HCV-caused liver disease every 

year in the United States.

27. HCV is the leading indication for liver transplants in the United States.

HCV in Prison

28. The prevalence of HCV in prison is much higher than in the general 

population. It is estimated that between 16% and 41% of the United States’ jail and 

prison population has HCV. Thus, incarceration is a risk factor for HCV.

29. Defendant FDC has reported to the media and researchers that 5,000 to 

5,272 of its approximately 98,000 inmates have HCV. As of August 8, 2016, 

Defendant FDC listed 4,797 inmates as having HCV in its internal records. As of 

late-2017, it was estimated that FDC had knowledge of at least 7,000 inmates who 

were infected with HCV.

30. In fact, because it is estimated that between 16% and 41% of 

incarcerated people have HCV, it is likely that between 14,700 and 40,184 FDC 

inmates have HCV. The true number is likely at the higher end of that spectrum 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 8 of 32
9

because of the high prevalence of HCV in Florida: Between 2009 and 2013, rates of 

acute HCV in Florida increased by 133%.

Standard of Care for HCV

31. For many years, there were no universally safe and effective treatments 

for HCV. The standard treatment prior to 2011, which included the use of interferon 

and ribavirin medications and sometimes required injections, had a long treatment 

duration (up to 48 weeks), failed to cure most patients, and was associated with 

numerous side effects, including psychiatric and autoimmune disorders, flulike 

symptoms, gastrointestinal distress, skin rashes, and severe anemia. Moreover, not 

all drug regimens worked for all types of HCV, and many could not be given to 

patients with other comorbid diseases.

32. In 2011, however, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) began 

approving new oral medications, called direct-acting antiviral (“DAA”) drugs, 

which have proven to work more quickly, cause fewer side effects, and treat chronic 

HCV much more effectively. At first, they were designed to work in tandem with 

the old treatment regimen. But beginning in 2013, the FDA began to approve DAA 

drugs that can be taken alone.

33. As of late-2013, DAA drugs became available for HCV patients.

34. These DAA drugs have far fewer side effects, dramatically greater 

efficacy, a shorter treatment duration (12 weeks), and are administered orally 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 9 of 32
10

(commonly a once-daily pill) rather than by injections. They have truly 

revolutionized the way HCV is treated.

35. Most importantly, 90 to 95% of HCV patients treated with any of these 

DAA drugs are cured, whereas the old treatment regime only helped roughly one 

third of patients.

36. For HCV, a “cure” is defined as a sustained virologic response (SVR)—

i.e., no detectable HCV genetic material in the patient’s blood—for three months 

following the end of treatment.

37. In response to the revolutionary DAA medications, the American 

Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (“AASLD”) and the Infectious Disease 

Society of America (“IDSA”) formed a panel of experts to conduct an extensive, 

evidence-based review of the testing, management, and treatment of HCV. The 

results of that review have been published in a comprehensive document called the 

HCV Guidance, which is updated regularly and is available at 

www.hcvguidelines.org. 

38. The HCV Guidance set forth the medical standard of care for the 

treatment of HCV, which is well-established in the medical community.

39. In 2014, the AASLD/IDSA panel, through the HCV Guidance, 

recommended treatment with DAA drugs for all persons with chronic HCV. The

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 10 of 32
11

recommendation reflected the continuing medical research showing the safety, 

tolerability, efficacy, and dramatic benefits of the DAA drugs.

40. Treatment with DAA drugs has been the standard of care for the 

treatment of HCV since 2014.

41. Under this standard of care, treatment with DAA drugs is expected to 

cure nearly all infected persons.

42. The benefits of immediate treatment include immediate decrease in 

liver inflammation, reduction in the rate of progression of liver fibrosis, reduction in 

the likelihood of the manifestations of cirrhosis and associated complications, a 70% 

reduction in the risk of liver cancer, a 90% reduction in the risk of liver-related 

mortality, and a dramatic improvement in quality of life. 

43. Treatment must be provided timely to ensure efficacy. Delay in 

treatment increases the risk that the treatment will be ineffective.

Public Health Benefits of Treatment in Prison

44. Providing expanded HCV screening and DAA treatment in Florida’s 

prisons would greatly reduce the number of new HCV cases in the community. 

Curing the disease while people are in prison would prevent inmates from 

transmitting it when released, and testing would diagnose numerous individuals who 

were unaware they were infected, thus allowing them to seek treatment once 

released.

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 11 of 32
12

45. Studies have shown that providing DAA treatment to everyone with 

chronic HCV increases long term cost-savings. One study even found that restricting 

DAA treatment access until patients were in the later stages of fibrosis actually 

results in higher per-patient costs because, while it may be initially less expensive to 

delay administering DAAs, over the course of treatment, the follow-up care 

outweighs the initial costs.

46. Thus, early DAA treatment has the potential to both drastically reduce 

the incidence of HCV in the general population and also to reduce the costs 

associated with serious complications from untreated HCV, such as liver transplants 

and liver cancer.

Defendants Policy and Practice of Not Providing Treatment 

to Inmates with Chronic HCV

47. From late-2013, when DAAs first became available, until 

approximately October 2017, Defendant FDC and its medical contractors, including 

Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and Centurion, had a policy and practice of not 

providing DAA drugs to inmates with chronic HCV.

48. Defendant FDC enforced such policy and practice despite knowing that 

the failure to provide DAA drugs to inmates with HCV subjects those inmates to an 

unreasonable risk of pain, liver failure, cancer, permanent damage to their health, 

and even death. By doing so, Defendant FDC has caused the unnecessary and wanton 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 12 of 32
13

infliction of pain and an unreasonable risk of serious damage to the health of inmates 

infected with HCV, including the Plaintiff.

49. From December 2012 until June 2017, Defendant Wexford utilized the 

same policy and practice of not providing DAA drugs to inmates with HCV as 

Defendant FDC. Defendant Wexford enforced such policy and practice despite 

knowing that the failure to provide DAA drugs to inmates with HCV subjects those 

inmates to an unreasonable risk of pain, liver failure, cancer, permanent damage to 

their health, and even death. By doing so, Defendant Wexford has caused the 

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and an unreasonable risk of serious 

damage to the health of inmates infected with HCV, including the Plaintiff.

50. From October 2012 until May 2016, Defendant Corizon utilized the 

same policy and practice of not providing DAA drugs to inmates with HCV as 

Defendant FDC. Defendant Corizon enforced such policy and practice despite 

knowing that the failure to provide DAA drugs to inmates with HCV subjects those 

inmates to an unreasonable risk of pain, liver failure, cancer, permanent damage to 

their health, and even death. By doing so, Defendant Corizon has caused the 

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and an unreasonable risk of serious 

damage to the health of inmates infected with HCV, including the Plaintiff.

51. At all relevant times since May 2016, Defendant Centurion has utilized

the same policy and practice of not providing DAA drugs to inmates with HCV as 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 13 of 32
14

Defendant FDC. Defendant Centurion enforced such policy and practice despite 

knowing that the failure to provide DAA drugs to inmates with HCV subjects those 

inmates to an unreasonable risk of pain, liver failure, cancer, permanent damage to 

their health, and even death. By doing so, Defendant Centurion has caused the 

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and an unreasonable risk of serious 

damage to the health of inmates infected with HCV, including the Plaintiff.

52. From late-2013, when DAA drugs first became available, until 

approximately November 2017, when Defendant FDC was court-ordered1 to begin 

treating HCV-infected inmates, Defendants failed and/or refused to provide DAA 

drugs to thousands of inmates with HCV—including Plaintiff—in contravention of 

the prevailing standard of care and in deliberate indifference to the serious medical 

needs of inmates with chronic HCV in Florida. This policy was implemented 

because of the cost of the treatment. 

53. As a result of Defendants failure and/or refusal to provide DAA drugs, 

over 100 inmates died of untreated HCV and hundreds more suffered irreparable 

liver damage.

54. Defendants also unjustifiably delayed providing treatment to HCVinfected inmates, even though the standard of care requires treatment as early as 

 1 See Hoffer v. Jones, 290 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (N.D. Fla. 2017) (granting preliminary injunction); 

see also Hoffer v. Inch, 382 F. Supp. 3d 1288 (N.D. Fla. 2019) (granting permanent injunction). 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 14 of 32
15

possible. Delayed DAA treatment increases the risk that the treatment will be 

ineffective. If treatment is delayed until a patient develops decompensated cirrhosis, 

a liver transplant may provide the only cure.

55. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants categorically withheld 

treatment from FDC inmates with HCV but did not categorically withhold treatment 

from inmates with other similar diseases or conditions (such as HIV) or from other 

inmates without similar diseases or conditions.

56. Defendants had a policy under which inmates with chronic HCV were 

not provided lifesaving medications for their disability, while inmates with other 

disabilities had access to lifesaving medications.

57. Defendants refused to provide FDC inmates, including the Plaintiff, 

with the necessary treatment for their HCV, and the only treatment recommended 

under the prevailing standard of care, because of the cost of the treatment.

58. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff and other HCV-infected 

inmates on the basis of disability.

Defendants Deliberately Deprived Plaintiff of 

Medically Necessary Treatment for His Chronic HCV

59. Plaintiff was incarcerated by Defendant FDC from June 17, 2013, until 

his release on July 24, 2020. He has a history of HCV since approximately 2005, 

which was diagnosed by FDC staff during a prior incarceration. At his initial intake 

health screening in 2013, Plaintiff informed FDC medical staff that he had HCV. 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 15 of 32
16

Thereafter, a blood draw was performed by FDC medical staff, which confirmed

Plaintiff’s diagnosis with HCV. Plaintiff was subsequently referred to the Chronic 

Illness Clinic for his chronic HCV for “monitoring.”

60. Throughout his incarceration, Plaintiff regularly inquired about the 

condition of his liver and requested treatment for his HCV. All of Plaintiff’s requests 

were denied. Moreover, Plaintiff was not adequately informed of the severity of his 

liver disease and the substantial health risks associated with chronic HCV. 

61. From June 2013 until January 2018, Plaintiff was only given routine

blood draws to monitor his HCV. During this time period, Plaintiff was not provided 

treatment for HCV and, in particular, was not provided DAAs even though treatment 

with DAAs was required under the standard of care since 2014.

62. DAA medications were available to Defendants upon request. 

However, Defendants did not request DAA drugs for, or provide DAA drugs to, 

Plaintiff until January 2018. 

63. Whether an FDC inmate receives DAA treatment almost exclusively 

relies on the inmate’s METAVIR or fibrosis score (F0-F4). Under FDC’s guidelines, 

inmates are then prioritized for treatment based on their fibrosis score, which reflects 

the stage and progression of their liver disease. Nonetheless, until November 2017, 

Defendants failed to require or perform the necessary tests to determine the stage 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 16 of 32
17

and progression of Plaintiff’s HCV, and thus, whether Plaintiff met the criteria for 

treatment under FDC’s guidelines.

64. It was not until November 2017—more than twelve (12) years after

FDC diagnosed him with HCV—that Plaintiff was given a FibroSure test to 

determine his fibrosis score. The results showed a fibrosis score of F4, thus

indicating that Plaintiff had cirrhosis. However, Plaintiff’s liver was likely cirrhotic 

prior to November 2017. In fact, Defendants were well-aware of this fact, as 

demonstrated by the fact Plaintiff’s medical records throughout his incarceration are 

replete with documentation of the countless serious and severe resultant, related, 

and/or associated medical conditions and effects of his HCV, including without 

limitation, cirrhosis, splenomegaly, anemia, jaundice, portal hypertension, nonbleeding esophageal varices, gastric varices with bleeding, hematemesis (vomiting 

blood), and ascites, as well as his persistent and extreme fatigue and low energy, dry 

and itchy skin, increased muscle weakness, confusion, joint pain, severe abdominal 

pain and discomfort, poor appetite, and nausea, beginning as early as 2014 and 

persisting throughout his incarceration. In fact, Plaintiff’s physicians suspected he

had developed cirrhosis, as well as variceal bleeding, in as early as 2016. Despite 

Plaintiff’s clinical presentation, no HCV treatment was provided to Plaintiff until 

January 2018, more than four years after DAAs first became available.

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 17 of 32
18

65. For years Defendants led Plaintiff to believe that he was on the list to

be treated. But Defendants had no intention of treating Plaintiff. Instead, Defendants 

withheld treatment from Plaintiff until January 2018 in order to save costs and 

increase profits. Treatment was only provided to Plaintiff after the Court in Hoffer

ordered FDC to begin treating HCV-infected inmates with DAA medications. There 

was no medical reason for Defendants to not treat Plaintiff with DAAs prior to his 

ultimate date of treatment.

66. Throughout his incarceration, Plaintiff repeatedly and specifically 

requested medical treatment for his HCV, both verbally and through the grievance 

process. Plaintiff even offered to pay for the medication himself. Defendants refused 

these requests. In fact, Plaintiff was told that he did not qualify for treatment under 

FDC’s treatment guidelines. Instead, Defendants merely continued to “monitor”

Plaintiff’s HCV from June 2013 until January 2018, at which time Plaintiff finally 

received DAA treatment.

67. Plaintiff repeatedly requested an accommodation for his chronic 

HCV—that is, treatment which could result in a cure for his disability. This request 

for DAA treatment was a request for a reasonable accommodation in that DAA drugs 

are the only recommended form of treatment capable of clearing HCV from 

Plaintiff’s body. Nonetheless, Defendants denied providing Plaintiff with such 

treatment until January 2018.

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 18 of 32
19

68. Plaintiff’s request for DAA drugs as treatment for HCV was a 

reasonable request for a reasonable accommodation as the Defendants were 

constitutionally required to provide such medication as treatment for HCV. 

Administering DAA drugs were necessary under the prevailing standard of care for 

treating individuals with HCV, and has been since 2014. 

69. Despite Plaintiff’s HCV-diagnosis, serious, severe and life-threatening 

HCV-related symptoms—which were well-known and well-documented by 

Defendants—and his repeated requests for treatment, Plaintiff was not provided 

DAA treatment until January 2018.

70. Plaintiff should have received treatment with DAA drugs as early as 

2014, shortly after his incarceration began, in accordance with the prevailing 

standard of care.

71. Plaintiff ultimately developed cirrhosis of the liver, and other serious 

complications associated with cirrhosis, due to Defendants’ refusal and delay in 

providing treatment for his HCV.

72. Defendants refused to provide DAA treatment for Plaintiff’s HCV 

because Defendants had a policy and practice of not providing DAA drugs to HCV 

inmates. This policy and practice was implemented for non-medical reasons,

including, inter alia, the cost of the treatment.

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 19 of 32
20

73. In other words, Defendants’ refusal to provide DAA treatment for nonmedical reasons constituted a deliberate indifference towards Plaintiff and his 

serious medical need and disability.

74. By being denied access to DAA treatment for his HCV by the

Defendants, Plaintiff was denied meaningful access to prison programs, services, 

and activities, including access to medical services.

75. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from a variety of 

symptoms directly caused by and/or associated with HCV including, but not limited 

to: persistent and extreme fatigue and low energy, dry and itchy skin, increased

muscle weakness, confusion, joint pain, severe abdominal pain and discomfort, poor 

appetite, and nausea. In fact, some days Plaintiff’s is unable to muster up enough 

strength to get out of bed. 

76. Plaintiff has also suffered and continues to suffer from a variety of 

medical conditions and impacts resulting from and/or associated with longstanding 

HCV including, but not limited to: cirrhosis, splenomegaly, anemia, jaundice, portal 

hypertension, non-bleeding esophageal varices, gastric varices with bleeding, 

hematemesis (vomiting blood), and ascites.

As Plaintiff’s Condition Worsened, Defendants Continued to Withhold 

Necessary Treatment for His Chronic HCV

77. As well-documented by Plaintiff’s medical records, from the beginning 

(i.e., June 2013) and throughout the course of his incarceration in FDC custody and 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 20 of 32
21

under Defendants’ medical care and treatment, Plaintiff’s HCV and his resultant, 

related, and/or associated medical conditions and impacts—including but not limited 

to, Plaintiff’s cirrhosis, splenomegaly, anemia, jaundice, portal hypertension, nonbleeding esophageal varices, gastric varices with bleeding, hematemesis (vomiting 

blood), and ascites, as well as his persistent and extreme fatigue and low energy, dry 

and itchy skin, increased muscle weakness, confusion, joint pain, severe abdominal 

pain and discomfort, poor appetite, and nausea—failed to improve, and in fact 

worsened, and drastically and even acutely so at times.

78. To be sure, Plaintiff was referred and transported by FDC multiple

times throughout his incarceration for treatment at RMC due to the seriousness and 

severity of his untreated HCV and resultant, related, and/or associated medical 

conditions and impacts.

79. In fact, Plaintiff’s untreated HCV, and resultant, related, and/or 

associated medical conditions and impacts, became so serious, severe, acute, and 

life-threatening that Plaintiff had to be transported to an outside, private healthcare 

facility in October 2017, for emergency treatment of his conditions, which by that 

time had worsened to the point where Plaintiff was vomiting copious amounts of 

blood and became jaundiced. Critically, and perhaps most egregiously in light of 

Plaintiff’s clear medical need for DAAs, FDC advised Plaintiff’s attending 

physicians not to prescribe any HCV drugs at that time.

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 21 of 32
22

80. Plaintiff returned to FDC custody and facilities after being fortunate 

enough to survive this traumatic medical incident, however, Defendants still failed 

to provide Plaintiff with DAAs as treatment for his chronic, serious, severe, and lifethreatening HCV until January 2018.

81. The irreparable damage suffered by Plaintiff may have been prevented 

if not for Defendants’ unconstitutional denial and delay of treatment for HCV. 

Plaintiff continues to suffer damages as a result of Defendants’ deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical need and disability.

82. Ultimately, Plaintiff has suffered serious, substantial, and permanent 

injuries, including irreparable liver damage, as a result of Defendants’ failure to 

provide him necessary medical care and treatment for his chronic HCV.

COUNT I 

TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) 

(Against Defendant FDC)

83. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully 

set forth herein.

84. This count is brought under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12134, and its 

implementing regulations. 

85. The ADA prohibits public entities from discriminating against 

individuals with disabilities in their services, programs, and activities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 22 of 32
23

12131–12134; see also 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130. In other words, the ADA impose an 

affirmative duty on public entities to create policies and procedures to prevent 

discrimination based on disability. 

86. Defendant FDC is a “public entity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 

12131(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. 

87. Plaintiff had chronic HCV, which is a physiological disorder or 

condition that affects one or more body systems, including but not limited to the 

digestive, gastrointestinal, immune, circulatory, cardiovascular, and hemic systems, 

and is therefore a physical impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) & (2); 28 C.F.R. § 

35.108(a) & (b). This physical impairment substantially limits one or more major 

life activities, including but not limited to eating, walking, bending, lifting, 

concentrating, thinking, and communicating; the operation of major bodily functions 

such as digestive, gastrointestinal, immune, circulatory, cardiovascular, and hemic 

systems; and the operation of the liver. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); 28 C.F.R. § 35.108(c).

88. In other words, Plaintiff’s chronic HCV caused him to have a disability 

as defined under the ADA. Stated differently, Plaintiff’s disability was chronic HCV.

89. Plaintiff has a record of having an impairment that substantially limits 

one or more major life activity, as he has a history of such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12102(1)(B); 28 C.F.R. § 35.108(a)(1)(ii) & (e). 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 23 of 32
24

90. Plaintiff is regarded by FDC as having an impairment that substantially 

limits one or more major life activity, as FDC perceives him as having such an 

impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C) & (3); 28 C.F.R. § 35.108(a)(1)(iii) & (f). 

Defendant FDC has subjected Plaintiff to a prohibited action because of an actual or 

perceived physical impairment. 

91. Plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability because he met the 

essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in 

programs or activities provided by Defendant FDC, including but not limited to

medical services. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2); 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.

92. By withholding medical treatment from those with HCV, but not 

withholding medical treatment from those with other disabilities or those who are 

not disabled, Defendant FDC excluded Plaintiff from participation in, and denied 

him the benefits of, FDC services, programs, and activities (such as medical 

services) by reason of his disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a).

93. By withholding medical treatment from those with HCV, but not 

withholding medical treatment from those with other disabilities or those who are 

not disabled, Defendant FDC subjected Plaintiff to discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 

12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a).

94. DAAs are the only effective medical treatment available for HCV under 

the prevailing standard of care, and is the constitutionally-required treatment under 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 24 of 32
25

the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff requested DAA treatment for his HCV, which was 

a request for a reasonable accommodation for his HCV. By denying or delaying in 

providing DAA treatment to Plaintiff, Defendant FDC refused or failed to provide 

Plaintiff a reasonable accommodation for his request for treatment of his HCV in 

violation of Title II of the ADA.

95. Defendant FDC failed to provide Plaintiff with equal access to and 

enjoyment of effective medical services. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1). 

96. Defendant FDC utilized criteria or methods of administration that had 

the effect of subjecting Plaintiff to discrimination and that defeated or substantially 

impaired accomplishment of the objectives of medical treatment for HCV. 28 C.F.R. 

§ 35.130(b)(3).

97. DAAs were readily available to Defendant FDC during this time period 

and yet it categorically refused to provide Plaintiff with treatment that the medical 

community deems essential. 

98. Defendant FDC denied and delayed providing Plaintiff with the 

necessary treatment and reasonable accommodation for his HCV because of the cost 

of the treatment and accommodation.

99. Defendant FDC knew about the violations described herein but failed 

to correct them, thereby exhibiting deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff. 

Such violations include but are not limited to:

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 25 of 32
26

(a) FDC’s decision to adopt and enforce a policy of not providing 

treatment to HCV-infected inmates;

(b) FDC’s refusal to provide Plaintiff with necessary medical 

treatment for his HCV, and the only treatment available under the prevailing 

standard care;

(c) FDC’s refusal to provide Plaintiff with DAA drugs because of 

the high, unbudgeted cost of the treatment; and

(d) To the extent it lacked sufficient funds to purchase and treat 

HCV-infected inmates like Plaintiff with DAAs, FDC’s refusal or failure to 

even request adequate funding from the Florida Legislature.

100. Had Defendant FDC not delayed but instead provided Plaintiff with 

DAA treatment and the reasonable accommodation he requested throughout his 

incarceration, Plaintiff would not have suffered additional injuries, including both 

physical injuries and emotional pain and suffering.

101. Defendant FDC owed Plaintiff a non-delegable duty to ensure that his 

wellbeing would not be compromised as a result of discrimination based on his 

disability. As such, Defendant FDC is vicariously liable for the actions of any and 

all persons or entities Defendant FDC contracted out its medical services to or 

otherwise designated to care for Plaintiff.

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 26 of 32
27

102. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant FDC’s actions and 

omissions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from harm and violation of 

his ADA rights.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant FDC for 

compensatory damages, including for physical injury, disfigurement, permanent 

physical injury, and emotional pain and suffering, for all prejudgment interest 

allowable under law, for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with this 

litigation, and for such other relief as this court deems appropriate. 

COUNT II 

SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT (RA) 

(Against Defendant FDC)

103. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully 

set forth herein.

104. This count is brought under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 

29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 791–794, et seq., and its implementing 

regulations. 

105. Section 504 of the RA prohibits discrimination against persons with 

disabilities by any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 29 

U.S.C. § 794(a).

106. Defendant FDC is a program or activity receiving federal financial 

assistance within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 794.

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 27 of 32
28

107. Defendant FDC excluded Plaintiff—a qualified individual with a 

disability—from participation in, and denied him the benefits of, programs or 

activities solely by reason of his disability (chronic HCV). 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); 29 

U.S.C. § 705(20); 28 C.F.R. § 42.503(a).

108. Defendant FDC subjected Plaintiff—a qualified individual with a 

disability—to discrimination. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

109. Defendant FDC denied Plaintiff—a qualified handicapped person—the 

opportunity accorded to others to participate in programs and activities. 28 C.F.R. § 

42.503(b)(1).

110. Defendant FDC utilized criteria or methods of administration that either 

purposely or in effect discriminate on the basis of handicap, and defeat or 

substantially impair accomplishment of the objectives of FDC’s programs or 

activities with respect to handicapped persons. 28 C.F.R. § 42.503(b)(3).

111. Defendant FDC knew about the violations described herein but failed 

to correct them, thereby exhibiting deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.

112. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant FDC’s exclusion and 

discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from harm and violation 

of his RA rights.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant FDC for 

compensatory damages, including for physical injury, disfigurement, permanent 

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 28 of 32
29

physical injury, and emotional pain and suffering, for all prejudgment interest 

allowable under law, for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with this 

litigation, and for such other relief as this court deems appropriate.

COUNT III

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – EIGHTH AMENDMENT MONELL CLAIM

(Against Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and Centurion)

113. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 82 as if fully 

set forth herein.

114. This count is brought through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and against Defendants 

Wexford, Corizon, and Centurion for violation of the Eighth Amendment’s 

prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment on inmates. 

115. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and 

Centurion and their policymakers knew about and enforced policies, practices, 

and/or custom that exhibited deliberated indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical 

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and 

Centurion, acting through their employees and agents, intentionally delayed, failed, 

and refused to provide Plaintiff with treatment that will address his serious medical 

needs despite knowing that its actions would result in Plaintiff’s continued suffering 

and exposure to liver failure and its symptoms, liver cancer, and death.

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 29 of 32
30

116. Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and Centurion have caused the wanton 

infliction of pain upon Plaintiff, an HCV-infected inmate, by exhibiting deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs and condition.

117. The refusal to provide treatment by Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and 

Centurion, acting through their employees and agents, worsened Plaintiff’s serious 

medical condition. Left untreated, Plaintiff’s medical needs posed a substantial risk 

of serious harm, and in fact, did cause actual harm. Defendants Wexford, Corizon, 

and Centurion knew of this substantial risk of serious harm, and the actual harm, 

faced by Plaintiff, and yet disregarded those risks and harms by failing to provide 

Plaintiff with the medication that would have alleviated those risks and harms. Thus, 

Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and Centurion have been deliberately indifferent to 

the substantial risk of serious harm posed to Plaintiff in connection with his chronic 

HCV.

118. By denying Plaintiff medically-necessary treatment for his HCV, or 

unjustifiably delaying in providing such treatment, Defendants Wexford, Corizon, 

and Centurion imposed punishment far in excess of that authorized by law, contrary 

to the Eighth Amendment.

119. Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and Centurion’s denial and delay of the 

medically necessary treatment for Plaintiff’s HCV violated all standards of decency, 

contrary to the Eighth Amendment.

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 30 of 32
31

120. Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and Centurion’s actions with respect to 

Plaintiff amounted to grossly inadequate care; medical care that can only charitably 

be described as cursory such that it amounted to no medical care at all.

121. Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and Centurion refused to provide

treatment for Plaintiff’s HCV because they had a policy and practice of not providing 

DAA drugs to HCV patients, which was implemented for non-medical reasons,

including the cost of the treatment. 

122. The constitutional violations of Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and 

Centurion, through the actions and omissions of their employees and agents, were 

directly and proximately caused by policies, practices, and/or customs implemented 

and enforced by Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and Centurion.

123. As a direct and proximate result of the policies, practices, customs, and 

deliberate indifference of Defendants Wexford, Corizon, and Centurion, Plaintiff has 

suffered substantial damages, including permanent physical injuries and emotional 

pain and suffering.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Wexford, 

Corizon, and Centurion for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s 

fees and costs, and such other relief as this court deems appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a jury trial for all counts alleged above.

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 31 of 32
32

Respectfully submitted,

ANDREWS LAW FIRM

822 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

T: (850) 681-6416 / F: 681-6984

/s/ John M. Vernaglia

JOHN M. VERNAGLIA (FBN 1010637)

RYAN J. ANDREWS (FBN 0104703)

DAVID A. WEISZ (FBN 1023229)

john@andrewslaw.com

ryan@andrewslaw.com

david@andrewslaw.com

service@andrewslaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 4:20-cv-00371-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 32 of 32