Plaintiff Keith Brown is a state prisoner in Pennsylvania. Brown initially filed a civil complaint in state court. Defendants Dr. Mary Joy Monsalud, Dr. Newton, and Karen Holly removed Brown’s state court complaint to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania as it raised federal questions.
Brown suffers from eye problems. He was prescribed eye drops for his use in his prison cell to treat his ailments. Brown refused this arrangement because he had mental health issues, claiming he would instead ingest the eye drops due to his suicidal tendencies rather than use them properly to treat his eye ailments if he had such drops available to use when needed.
Brown filed his civil action asserting multiple claims against the three individual Defendants. Two were federal claims: (1) an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs claim; and (2) an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim. He also raised a Pennsylvania state law claim against the Defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Defendants each separately moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The District Court granted Defendants’ motions in part. The District Court dismissed Brown’s ADA claims against all three Defendants in their individual capacities. The District Court determined that Brown could not proceed against the Defendants on such a claim because the ADA does not recognize a claim for monetary damages against government employees in their individual capacities. The District Court further dismissed Brown’s ADA claims against Defendants Monsalud and Newton in their official capacities because they are not public entities under Title II of the ADA. However, the District Court permitted Brown’s claim under the ADA to proceed against Defendant Holly in her official capacity and permitted Brown’s Eighth Amendment claim against all Defendants and his state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed as well.
Following discovery, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. Brown also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or for a temporary restraining order. The District Court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and denied Brown’s motion for a preliminary injunction or for a temporary restraining order. Brown then appealed.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated in its non precedential Per Curiam Opinion filed on October 2, 2025: To state a claim under Title II of the ADA for disability-based discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) who was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or [other activities for which a public entity is responsible, or was otherwise] subjected to discrimination by any such entity; (4) by reason of his disability. A public entity is defined as (a) any State or local government; (b) any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government; and (c) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any other commuter authority (as defined in section 24012(4) of Title 49). The federal appellate court therefore held “The District Court properly concluded that Brown could not move forward with his claims for individual liability against the Defendants under the ADA.”
The federal appellate court further held “the District Court’s dismissal of Brown’s Title II ADA claims against Defendants Monsalud and Newton as well as its grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Holly in their official capacities. His allegations against Defendants Monsalud and Newton under Title II of the ADA amounted to his medical disagreement with their decision to allow him access to his eye drops in his cell, given his mental condition. This medical disagreement with Defendants Monsalud and Newton did not rise to the level of a Title II ADA violation against those Defendants.”
A plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference by showing that: (1) a prison official was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs; and (2) his medical needs were serious. A medical need is serious if it has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment or if it is so obvious that a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention. A prison official is deliberately indifferent if she knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health or safety. Deliberate indifference can manifest as an intentional refusal to provide care, delayed medical treatment for non-medical reasons, denial of prescribed medical treatment, or a denial of reasonable requests for treatment that leads to suffering or risk of injury.
The federal appellate court held “this Court agrees with the District Court’s determination that Brown’s issues with the Defendants’ actions regarding his eye drops amount to one of a mere disagreement regarding the proper administration of his eye drops – namely whether he could administer them himself. This disagreement did not constitute deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.”
A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law requires four elements: (1) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (2) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; (3) it must cause emotional distress; and (4) the distress must be severe. Pennsylvania law defines outrageous or extreme conduct as going beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in civilized society. In addition to showing outrageous conduct, a plaintiff must also suffer physical harm.
The federal appellate court held “Brown was under the treatment and care of medical professionals. He was examined and it was determined that he could maintain eye drops in his cell. The record confirms no conduct by the Defendants that rose to the level of outrageousness. While Brown may have disagreed with the treatment option he was given, this does not mean that the Defendants were liable under Pennsylvania law for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
“Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment. Brown’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.”
Source Brown v. Monsalud, No. 24-1555.
If you or a loved one were injured due to deliberate indifference or the lack of appropriate medical care while incarcerated in a prison, jail, or other correctional facility in the United States, you should promptly seek the legal advice of a local medical malpractice lawyer in your state who handles prisoner/inmate medical malpractice claims and may investigate your claim and represent you or your loved one, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to be connected with prison medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
