Knackstedt v. Bunting
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this federal case, the plaintiff’s denial-of-MOUD claim failed to show deliberate indifference or equal protection violations. Detox occurred pre-incarceration, withdrawal had ended, and care delays did not cause substantial harm.

2021 | Federal Juristiction

Knackstedt v. Bunting

Keywords federal case; MOUD; deliberate indifference; equal protection; denial of MOUD; pre-incarceration detox; withdrawal symptoms; care delays; substantial harm; legal claim
Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

The plaintiff's claim alleging denial of medication-assisted opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment was unsuccessful. The court found insufficient evidence to establish either deliberate indifference or a violation of the plaintiff's equal protection rights. The completion of detoxification prior to incarceration, the cessation of withdrawal symptoms, and a lack of demonstrable substantial harm resulting from any treatment delays contributed to the dismissal of the claim.

Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

The plaintiff's claim of denial of medication-assisted opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment failed in federal court. The court found insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference or equal protection violations. The plaintiff's detoxification was completed before incarceration, opioid withdrawal symptoms had subsided, and any delays in receiving treatment post-incarceration did not result in substantial harm.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The court rejected the prisoner's claim that the prison violated his rights by denying him medication-assisted opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment. The court found that the prisoner's withdrawal had ended before incarceration, and any delays in treatment after he was imprisoned did not cause him significant harm. Therefore, the court found no evidence of deliberate indifference or unequal treatment.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The plaintiff did not prove that the jail unfairly denied their medication-assisted opioid use disorder treatment. They got help before going to jail, the withdrawal feelings from stopping the medicine were over, and any waits for care did not substantially harm them.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

No. 20-3264-SAC, 2021 WL 259398 (D. Kan. Jan. 26, 2021)

Highlights