Drug Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit
plaintiff, who had been receiving physician-prescribed treatment for his OUD prior to his detention, but the state refused to consider the medical dynamics of his case. The court’s ruling that the commonwealth's policy depriving methadone to inmates with OUD violated the ADA (as well as the U.S. Constitution, see below).221 Similarly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction ordering a jail in Maine to provide buprenorphine to treat an individual with OUD.222 For in-depth treatment of the legal and advocacy issues regarding clients suffering OUD and regarding treatment in jails and prisons, the Legal Action Center provides a number of resources for attorneys.223
221
See Pesce v. Coppinger, 1:18-cv-11972-DJC (slip op’n), (D. Mass. Nov. 28, 2018); see also Brief in Support of Plaintiff by amici, https://www.aclum.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/20181102_pesce_publichealthamicus.pdf. 222
Smith v. Aroostook County, 922 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2019).
223
See Legal Action Center, MAT Advocacy Toolkit (June 2021), https://www.lac.org/resource/mat-advocacy-toolkit; for a summary of cases and policy issues, see Sally Friedman and Gabrielle de la Gueronniere, MOUD in Corrections: Recent Legal & Policy Developments and Implications, Legal Action Center (January 28, 2020), https://opioidresponsenetwork.org/documents/MOUDConference2020/Gabrielle%20de%20la%20Gueronni ere-%20MOUD%20presentation%20RI.pdf; see also O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Applying the Evidence (October 2019), https://oneill.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Applying-the-Evidence-Report-1.pdf.
Disclaimer: All content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice
70
