|
|
| Legal diseases |
| By Sarah Etter, News Reporter |
| Published: 11/06/2006 |
Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus can be some of the most devastating words for a warden to hear. The bacterium, also known as MRSA or Staph, is an infection strain that is resistant to antibiotics and can be spread through skin-to-skin or surface-to-skin contact, making it a rampant problem in many facilities that struggle with an influx of inmates and overcrowding. MRSA can also lead bone disease, skin disease, pneumonia and blood infections. Some states report more than 200 offender cases of MRSA annually, and while infected inmates are a concern, so are staff infections, especially when they lead to legal action. When CO John Kaucher contracted MRSA, and then transmitted it to his wife, the couple sued Pennsylvania's Bucks County Department of Corrections. “Mr. Kaucher and his wife claimed they weren't given enough information about MRSA, thus the county created a danger and they were injured from that danger,” says Bucks County defense lawyer Frank Chernak, from Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll. The Kauchers blame the county for their infections because they claim officials hadn't adequately treated infected Bucks County Correctional Facility offenders. The lawsuit states that “there had always been cases of inmates with skin infections” at the jail. But in July 2002, the County Health Department noticed an increase. The Kauchers contend the increase in skin infections among inmates during the summer of 2002 was the result of unsanitary and dangerous conditions at the jail.” As a result, MRSA policies came under harsh scrutiny. Bucks County attorneys said for every identified case of staph proper procedure was followed, including isolating infected inmates and disinfecting housing areas. The Kauchers argued that many offenders hid their infections to avoid segregation, which only led to more outbreaks. They further claimed that the county did not train COs on MRSA prevention until after the 2002 outbreak. Kaucher contended he was required to transport infected inmates to hospitals for treatment, and possibly contracted the disease while handcuffing the offenders. He also claimed that officials told him he could only contract MRSA if he had sex with an offender. Bucks Country officials did send a memo stating that it had no known MRSA cases in the facility, and it urged proper hygiene to prevent infection. Kaucher claimed this memo was sent after his MRSA diagnosis. A Pennsylvania judge initially ruled in favor of Bucks County on the grounds that officials had not created a dangerous work environment and had offered adequate MRSA training and treatment. But the Kauchers appealed the ruling and changed legal tactics. “The Kauchers contend their claim is not based on a right to safe working conditions at the jail. Rather, it is based on the defendants' “conscious-shocking” conduct in creating dangerous conditions that led to the spread of infection, in failing to offer sufficient medical treatment to inmates and officers, and in misrepresenting the risks of infection. They contend defendants should be held liable for this conduct under the state created danger doctrine,” the lawsuit notes. Bucks County argued that all infected officers are immediately treated and isolated, which is the same procedure used for inmates. “Mr. Kaucher was one of those colonized with MRSA. All those who tested positive for MRSA were immediately informed, treated, and in the case of employees, encouraged to follow up with their personal physicians,” Bucks County claimed in the lawsuit. In a landmark ruling that could set the precedent for future cases, the Kaucher's case was again dismissed, and then again after a second appeal when the judge found that the Kaucher's had not proven neglect on the part of the county. Although the Kaucher legal team and the BCCF did not return calls for comment, Chernak says the ruling should serve to raise awareness about MRSA procedures. “Corrections facilities should ensure they have documented training for officers and staff,” Chernak recommends. “If you transport an inmate who may have a communicable disease and use handcuffs, you must have a procedure in place to sanitize the handcuffs after use. COs should know that they need to wear gloves and sanitize any equipment.” MRSA policy and procedure aside, Bucks County may have won the Kaucher case thanks to signed documents. “It's hard for a CO to say he didn't know he was at risk for a communicable disease when an agency covers that information in semi-annual training and covers it during role call. Especially when the CO signed off that they received MRSA training,” Chernak explains. The Kaucher case serves as a good lesson for any corrections facility about proper training, treatment and procedure. Chernak says facilities should ensure that infection information is disseminated to all staff, but it should also ensure that all parties verify, preferably with a signed document, that they received the information. The information must also be passed through each shift. Chernak adds that some facilities can forget to brief the late night shift. “Communication from management to staff is crucial,” he says. “Staff must know what's going on and how to protect themselves so they can continue to do their job. Corrections officials can increase that communication with MRSA meetings, memos, and open forums where COs can have their concerns addressed.” Next week, Corrections.com reporter, Sarah Etter examines how other facilities are combating MRSA to prevent further disease and possible lawsuits. For more information on MRSA check out: The Centers for Disease Control's Healthcare-Associated Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (HA-MRSA) link For more information about the Kaucher case check out: Court opinions and Kaucher v. Bucks County. |
Comments:
Login to let us know what you think
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Hmm, I like your approach and I think it really gives room for better interpretation. useful reference