This is the section of sentences for being released for medical reasons which can find in 61 P.S. § 81. If you are currently incarcerated, you should first consult with a Lehigh County criminal lawyer to see if you can be released from prison for medical reasons. It essentially states that if there is a record of proof that a convict is seriously ill, in that it is necessary that he or she be removed from the penal institution, the court shall have power to modify it sentence, impose a suitable sentence, or modify the order of confinement. If a person recovers however, the court shall recommit him or her back to the institution from which he or she was removed.
When he defendant/convict challenges the denial of a petition for modification of sentence for medical reasons, they do not challenge the validity of the conviction or sentence. There is no remedy under the Post Conviction Relief Act and the petition is not subject to the eligibility or timeliness requirements of that statute. Any relief sought by a prisoner pursuant to the statute is not subject to the time limits after sentencing within which post sentence motions must be filed. Therefore, the challenge to the denial can occur at any time.
In Commonwealth v. Deaner from 2001, the defendant raised numerous allegations that he was receiving in adequate medical care. However, the defendant was not able to allege that his current facility lacked the resources to treat him. The court found that the defendant failed to allege that his illness compromises the collective health of the institution holding him. The court decided that the defendant had not made a substantial claim under Section 81 for modification of his sentence or transfer. The courts have determined that relief is not limited to new medical conditions which arise after sentencing. Prisoners may seek relief under the statute for pre-existing conditions. Generally, this is the case where a pre-existing condition increases in severity or, once incarcerated, it is determined that they are a danger to the facility or the facility cannot treat them properly. In Commonwealth v. Tuddles, from 2001, the defendant alleged that he was not receiving the resources and the help necessary to treat him. The court determined that the defendant's allegations do not go beyond the adequacy of his treatment. The court determined that the defendants soul complaint is neglect in treatment and medication, which is capable of being remedied without a transfer. The court determined that judges may not indiscriminately denominate the place for prisoners; statutes and regulations established the presumptive place of confinement.
Section 81 provides a court with authority to transfer an inmate to some other suitable institution where proper care may be administered. The defendant in this case however was not seeking a transfer; he was seeking house arrest or permission to leave the jail unattended for medical appointments. The court stated that because Section 81 is clearly meant to recognize the authority to transfer from one institution to another, the defendants petition was not subject of a proper Section 81 claim.
The court further found that no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief under this section was made without a hearing. In Commonwealth v. Dunlavey of 2002, the court determined that the mere fact that the defendant suffers from a "serious illness" is not sufficient to allow relief under 61 PS 81. Rather the requirement of the statute is a "serious illness" and a showing that it is "necessary" to leave the prison to receive medical care, either because the inmates disease cannot be treated in prison or as a means of quarantine. The court determined that the appropriate standard to be applied is whether an inmate who has become seriously ill while in prison should be temporarily released to receive the necessary medical treatment. In this case, the defendant had not alleged that the disease that he suffered from could not be treated in prison. The record showed that the defendant, while suffering from many illnesses, was receiving treatment for all of them in the prison system. At the hearing, the defendant's dentist testified as to the defendants medical condition. He described the successful treatment of defendants cancer, which involve various operations and follow-up care. The dentist informed the court that defendants cancer has been in remission for the last five years. The cross examination by the defendants attorney did not reveal anything lacking from the prison's systems treatment of this illness.