Toxicology, treatment compliance and monitoring debated in Wilkerson hearing

During argument the bench asked how to treat positive PCP tests when labs could not always distinguish new use from residual byproducts. A justice observed the lab ambiguity and plaintiff counsel acknowledged some tests were inconclusive but said there were "way more" instances of affirmative PCP and THC findings.

Counsel and the bench also debated whether Miller attended appointments and whether DOC scheduling or treatment gaps reflected institutional failures. Plaintiff said Miller missed some treatment but had attended many scheduled appointments and argued that monitoring deficiencies by DOC nonetheless constituted gross negligence supporting a jury instruction on causation.