The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to take up Pennsylvania's petition to overturn a ruling finding it could possibly be held liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act in an incarcerated man's lawsuit alleging he was illegally denied access to proper medical care.

The decision by the high court not to take the case leaves in place a Third Circuit ruling that found Pennsylvania is potentially liable in a lawsuit by Jose Montanez. The commonwealth had argued that the Third Circuit relied on a legal theory that neither party in the case argued in violation of a core legal rule known as the party-presentation principle.

"Apparently dissatisfied with the arguments that Montanez's counsel chose to raise, the Third Circuit took over," Pennsylvania said in its petition for certiorari. "Adopting an advisory role, that court carved out Montanez's eventual path to victory against the commonwealth by forcing the parties to address the derivative-liability issue and then, unsurprisingly, resolving it in such a way as to impose maximum (i.e., vicarious) liability on the commonwealth."

The high court did not provide reasoning for why it declined to take up Pennsylvania's challenge or how the justices voted.

Montanez initially filed suit pro se against the commonwealth and its medical contractor, Wellpath LLC, alleging he was denied adequate medical care. Montanez claims he became paralyzed from the chest down and was denied medical care and basic medical equipment, such as a cane.

The lawsuit, which is still pending in district court, was filed against state and prison officials, Wellpath employees — including doctors and nurses — and the state itself. The lawsuit alleged Montanez was denied medical care for days despite being unable to walk and frequently urinating on himself.

A district court initially denied Montanez's pro se suit and refused to allow him a chance to amend his claims. The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal, finding Montanez should be given a second shot to bring certain claims against both Pennsylvania and the state's prison medical contractor, Wellpath LLC.

The Third Circuit ruled that Pennsylvania can be held liable under Title II of the ADA, which requires that state governments provide equal access to public services, including healthcare. While Wellpath is not liable under Title II, the panel said it must face claims under a separate law, Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act.

The panel also found that its opinion was in line with the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth circuits, which recognized liability for states under the ADA. Pennsylvania disagreed, claiming in its petition that the Third Circuit holding deepens a circuit split on the liability issue.

The commonwealth pointed to two circuits, the Sixth and Eleventh circuits, which held that vicarious liability under Title II is expressly unavailable. The commonwealth argued in its petition that the minority view of the circuit split is correct in its interpretation of the federal law.

Montanez argued in his response that the court should deny certiorari and allow his lawsuit to continue. The response said the issue of derivative or vicarious liability argued by Pennsylvania should be rejected by the high court because Montanez always intended to hold the commonwealth directly responsible.

"The Third Circuit took Montanez at his word," Montanez's brief to the high court said. "Presumably accepting that he was not seeking to hold the commonwealth vicariously liable for the conduct of the medical contractor employees, the court did not address vicarious or derivative liability anywhere in its discussion of Montanez's claims against the commonwealth."

A spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and an attorney representing Montanez did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The government is represented by Daniel Barrett Mullen of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.

Montanez is represented by Charles Rothfeld of Mayer Brown LLP and Paul Whitfield Hughes of McDermott Will & Schulte.

The case is Pennsylvania et al. v. Jose Montanez, case number 25-1073, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

--Editing by Tim Ruel.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.