FAYETTEVILLE -- Lawyers for Washington County Sheriff Tim Helder and a doctor have again asked a judge to toss out a federal lawsuit over the use of ivermectin to treat inmates with covid at the jail.
The American Civil Liberties Union contends in its response it's made valid claims and should be allowed to continue developing its case.
The ACLU of Arkansas filed the federal lawsuit in January on behalf of former detainees who claim they were unknowingly given ivermectin at the jail to treat covid-19 without their prior informed consent or being told the nature, contents or potential side effects of the drug.
The lawsuit says they were told the treatment consisted of vitamins, antibiotics and/or steroids. The lawsuit contends detainees were given ivermectin as early as November 2020 and didn't become aware of what the treatment was until July 2021.
Plaintiffs in the case include Edrick Floreal-Wooten, Jeremiah Little, Julio Gonzales, Dayman Blackburn and Thomas Fritch, who were housed in a quarantine block at the jail.
Defendants include Helder, in his individual capacity as sheriff; Karas Correctional Health; and Dr. Robert Karas. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn't approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing covid-19 in humans, according to the lawsuit. It's approved to treat some parasitic worms, head lice and skin conditions but isn't an antiviral drug.
"The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and their amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because any alleged amendment to that document would be futile in purporting to state a claim," according to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which asks U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks to dismiss the lawsuit.
The defense argues there are no allegations of constitutional violations in the lawsuit that a federal court could decide and that, at best, it's a case alleging medical malpractice, which does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. They also argue the defendants are entitled to qualified and statutory immunity from being sued.
The defendants also maintain their position that ivermectin can be used to successfully treat covid.
"There are many studies showing at least that ivermectin can be successfully used to prevent death in covid-19 patients," according to the brief.
In a response, ACLU lawyers argue the motion ignores two of the most significant allegations made in the lawsuit.
"Specifically, defendants never mention plaintiffs' allegation that the Karas defendants never told them that they were receiving ivermectin," according to the response. "Additionally, defendants choose to ignore plaintiffs' allegation that defendants used overt deception by telling them that the drug cocktail merely contained 'vitamins,' 'antibiotics' and/or 'steroids.' These types of allegations elevate defendants' actions beyond mere negligence or medical malpractice and into the realm of a constitutional violation."
The response argues the inmates have a constitutional right to receive information required for them to decide whether to accept or refuse treatment and that right was deliberately disregarded.
"When making a decision about whether to refuse medical treatment, a reasonable patient would, at the very least, need to know what they are being given," according to the response.
Motion for judgment on the pleadings
A party’s request to the court to rule in his/her favor based on the pleadings on file, without accepting evidence, as when the outcome of the case rests on the court’s interpretation of the law. A function of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is to dispose of baseless claims or defenses when the formal pleadings reveal their lack of merit. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the proper procedure when all of the material allegations of fact are admitted in the pleadings and only questions of law remain. When the pleadings do not resolve all factual issues, judgment on the pleadings is generally inappropriate.
Source: uslegal.com