This case challenges the failure of the District of Columbia government to protect some of its most vulnerable patients from back-to-back crises at their treatment facility: first, an extended water outage in the fall of 2019, and second, the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020.
For more than three weeks, Saint Elizabeths Hospital, an inpatient mental health facility operated by the District, did not have clean running water. The crisis caused the facility to drastically reduce the availability of therapy sessions and cease providing some medical care altogether.
Patients and staff were not able to regularly flush toilets, resulting in fecal matter, urine, and menstrual blood overflowing onto bathroom floors. Indoor showers were turned off. The outdoor showers that the District obtained were clogged and dirty. Patients had to walk to those showers in groups and wait outside, dripping wet in cold temperatures, for other members of their group to finish showering before they could go indoors. The conditions in St. Elizabeths attracted insects and produced a stench that one patient compared to the smell of dead rats.
In response, the District chose not to transfer patients to new facilities or even cease admitting new residents. Instead, it confined patients in filth and disorder, subjecting them to trauma that could exacerbate their mental health disabilities.
The conditions that festered at St. Elizabeths and the District’s response to them shock the conscience. They also violate patients’ rights under the Fifth Amendment. On October 23, 2019, in collaboration with the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and Arnold & Porter, the ACLU-DC filed suit to demand that St. Elizabeths provide patients the care they deserve.
The same day we filed our lawsuit, the District restored clean running water at St. Elizabeths. It has not, however, explained how it will address the fallout from this crisis or prevent similar crises from arising the next time an emergency occurs at the facility. We will therefore still be seeking appropriate orders from the court.
In December 2019, the District asked the court to dismiss the complaint, and in January 2020, the court granted us discovery to respond to the District’s arguments.
Before discovery concluded, it became clear in the spring of 2020 that the District’s lack of emergency preparedness was again jeopardizing patients’ health and safety when the COVID-19 pandemic hit Washington, D.C. Despite clear guidance from the Centers for Disease Control, the D.C. Department of Health, and the Mayor’s orders, the District is not ensuring that patients at Saint Elizabeths Hospital are properly protected from the risk of contracting COVID-19. Patients at Saint Elizabeths Hospital are unable to properly practice social distancing. Symptomatic patients are not tested at all, or not tested in a timely matter. Symptomatic patients are not medically isolated from other patients who reside in their unit. Known or suspected cases of COVID-19 have generally not been transferred to other facilities where they can receive appropriate treatment. Patients who test positive for COVID-19 are not quarantined from other patients. The Hospital has continued to be open for new admittances.
By April 16, 2020, the Department of Behavioral Health reported that four Saint Elizabeths Hospital patients have died of coronavirus, and 32 patients and 47 staff at the Hospital have tested positive for COVID-19.
That day, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to challenge the unconstitutional and unconscionable conditions at the Hospital and seek patient releases, individualized patient assessments, and conditions reform.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint, and after two telephone hearings, granted plaintiffs’ motion for emergency relief on the two issues we identified as most pressing—the failure to medically isolate patients who have been exposed to the virus, and the failure to adhere to CDC guidance in deciding when to release patients from isolation. In an order issued early Saturday morning, April 25, the court noted that the number of patient deaths had risen to seven and recognized that “the risks to Plaintiffs are immediate and manifest.” The court concluded that “Plaintiffs have offered compelling evidence (on the extremely expedited schedule governing their motion for a [temporary restraining order]) that the challenged practices substantially depart from accepted professional standards.” Accordingly, the court ordered the District to conform to CDC guidance by increasing its use of medical isolation at the Hospital and by imposing more stringent criteria before releasing patients from isolation.
The court appointed three experts as “friends of the court” to investigate and report on the conditions at St. Elizabeths. Following their report, the court on May 11 extended and expanded the original TRO—adding requirements that the Hospital limit staff movement between units and test staff for the virus. On May 24, the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Hospital to continue with the court-ordered measures regarding isolation, staff movement, and staff testing for the duration of the litigation. As the court explained in its May 24 order, “roughly one out of every twenty patients has died and more than one out of every three patients have been infected.” Further, the court found that the District could not defend, as a matter of professional judgment, its “perilous practice” regarding isolation prior to the TRO, and the court “conclude[d][ that Defendants’ delay in testing all staff and their lack of a plan to continue testing all patients and staff constitutes a substantial departure from professional judgment.”
The government appealed the preliminary injunction in June 2020. While the appeal proceeded, the government also filed a motion to dismiss the case in the district court, even though the preliminary injunction was still in place. Briefing on the government’s motion concluded in December 2020. Briefing on the government’s appeal concludes in April 2021, after which the case will be set for argument..