吃瓜直播

PHILADELPHIA 鈥� The 吃瓜直播, the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, and the 吃瓜直播 of Pennsylvania have filed their opening brief in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to reverse the dismissal of a case challenging the deprival of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.

The groups represent Jonathan DiFraia, who was forced to stop taking life-saving medication while he was incarcerated because he received two disciplinary charges. The deprival was not based on DiFraia鈥檚 medical needs, but entirely on a non-medical rationale. As a result, DiFraia suffered painful withdrawal symptoms and his mental and physical health deteriorated. Studies show that people who are forcibly taken off of their MOUD face much higher risks of relapse, overdose, and death.

鈥淚 was locked up because I have a chronic disease, and they refused to provide me with treatment because they don鈥檛 understand drug addiction. I am terrified that the same thing could happen to me again, and I鈥檒l be forced to go without treatment,鈥� said Mr. DiFraia.

After being taken off of his MOUD, DiFraia asked for his medication to be reinstated. After the request was denied, he sued, asking a federal district court to enforce his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Eighth Amendment. His complaint was dismissed by the trial court, but as the 吃瓜直播 and partners argue in the brief, the court erred in that decision.

鈥淢edication for opioid use disorder is essential and lifesaving. It would be unimaginable for a person with diabetes to be forcibly removed from their insulin treatment, yet that is exactly what happened to Mr. DiFraia. Medications for opioid use disorder need to be available to everyone who needs them鈥攂oth inside jails and prisons, and in the community,鈥� said Joseph Longley, staff attorney with the 吃瓜直播 Disability Rights Program.

The brief argues that DiFraia properly lodged allegations against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections for violating his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yet the district court did not address the substance of DiFraia鈥檚 claims, instead relying on the fact that he had only named the defendants in their individual capacities rather than their official capacities.

鈥淔ar too often, jails and prisons refuse to recognize that OUD is a chronic disease. Incarcerated people with OUD have the same right to medical care as those with all other chronic diseases. This includes the right not to have medical care taken away as punishment,鈥� said Sarah Bellos, staff attorney with the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project.

Likewise, the brief highlights DiFraia鈥檚 claim under the Eighth Amendment鈥檚 prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The district court also dismissed this claim, suggesting that DiFraia must prove that the officials who deprived him of medical treatment did so in order to cause him pain or harm. This is directly contrary to longstanding Supreme Court precedent.