 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Silo v. Ridge3/12/1999
SUBMITTED: January 15, 1999
Before the Court are preliminary objections filed on behalf of Respondents Tom Ridge, Governor, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), Martin F. Horn, Secretary of DOC, James Price, individually, and in his capacity of Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, to a petition for review on behalf of Jerome Silo, a state inmate, and those similarly situated (collectively, Silo), seeking a declaratory judgment holding that the Prison Medical Services Act (Act) and DOC's Policy Bulletin DC-ADM 820: Co-Payment for Medical Services (Policy Bulletin) are unconstitutional and invalid. For the reasons set for the below, we grant Respondents' preliminary objections and dismiss Silo's petition for declaratory relief.
I.
The Act established a co-pay program for inmate medical services in the DOC prison system that requires inmates to cover a portion of the actual costs of certain medical services provided. The Act also required that DOC develop regulations to implement the inmate co-pay program. Section 3(b) of the Act, 61 P.S. §1013(b), requires that the regulations must provide for consistent medical services guidelines by specifying the medical services which are subject to fees, the fee amounts, payment procedures, medical procedures which are not subject to fees and fees applicable to medical emergencies, chronic care and pre-existing conditions.
DOC promulgated regulations to implement the inmate co-pay program established by the Act. Those regulations became final and effective upon their publication in the May 30, 1998 issue of the Pennsylvania Bulletin and are now codified at 37 Pa. Code §93.12. Pursuant to 45 Pa. C.S. §905(1) and (2), final publication of the regulations in the Pennsylvania Bulletin creates a rebuttable presumption that the regulations were duly promulgated and have been approved as to legality.
In short, the regulations provide that DOC will charge inmates a $2.00 fee for the provision of a limited number of medical services, and two-thirds of the total cost of medical services provided to another inmate as a result of the inmate's assaultive conduct. However, the Act and regulations prohibit denying inmates access to any of the listed medical services because of inability to pay the required fee. DOC has prepared an inmate handbook explaining the Act and the regulations, including an explanation of the program regulations.
Silo, in his declaratory judgment action, asserts that the Act and Policy Bulletin are invalid based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §§501—754, the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws contained in U.S. Const. Art. 1 §10, the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder contained in U.S. Const. Art. I., §9, cl. 3, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12101—12213 (ADA), the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966 (MHMRA), the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA) and the "soon to be enacted" Patient's Bill of Rights.
On June 18, 1998, Respondents filed preliminary objections to Silo's declaratory judgment action seeking dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that 1) Silo's complaint fails to conform with the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. No. 1704, which requires that a class action complaint include the designation "Class Action" in the caption; 2) that Silo's declaratory judgment complaint is legally insufficient because he has failed to allege sufficient facts to state an actual controversy; and 3) Silo's declaratory judgment complaint is legally insufficient because it fails to state a cause of a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|