Opinion ID: 2761209
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kosilek I

Text: Kosilek first sued the DOC in 1992, alleging that its failure to provide direct treatment for her GID was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. At that time, Kosilek was receiving only supportive therapy to cope with the distress caused by her GID. Kosilek initially sought both damages and injunctive relief requiring the DOC to provide her with sex reassignment surgery (SRS), although only her claim for injunctive relief survived to trial. The district court issued a decision in 2002, in which it concluded that Kosilek had proven the existence of a serious medical need and had shown that her then-current treatment plan was inadequate. The court concluded, however, that the DOC was unaware that a failure to provide additional treatment to Kosilek might result in serious harm. Moreover, it held that the DOC's failure to provide treatment was rooted, at least in part, in sincere security concerns. As a result, the court ruled that the DOC was not in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Despite finding for the DOC, the district court's opinion made clear that Kosilek required additional treatment for her GID, and that the DOC would need to develop and implement an improved treatment plan. The court warned that a failure to provide treatment in the future, now that the DOC was on notice of the -5- potential for harm if only supportive therapy was provided, could amount to an Eighth Amendment violation.