AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Medical Care
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability for
Inadequate Prisoner Medical Care, 2007 (9) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal
Article: Forced Feeding or Medication
of Prisoners, 2007 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Legal Issues
Pertaining to Inmate Funds, 2008 (4) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
(includes section on recovery of medical costs).
Monthly Law Journal
Article: Transsexual Prisoners:
Medical Care Issues, 2009 (8) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil
Liability for Inadequate Prisoner Dental Care, 2009 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Mental
Health Care of Prisoners, 2009 (11)
AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Shackling
of Pregnant Prisoners, 2009 (12)
AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Avoiding
Liability for Antibiotic Resistant Infections in Prisoners, 2011 (3) AELE Mo. L.
J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil
Liability for Inadequate Prisoner Medical Care: Eye and Vision Related,
2014 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Courts Address COVID-19 Issues in Prisons and Jails, 2020 (10) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
|
A prisoner complained that he suffered severe back pain whenever he stood for periods of 15-20 minutes or longer. Because medical treatment he received did not alleviate the pain, he sued a prison doctor and nurse for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, as well as the private company providing their services at the facility. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff failed to show any evidence that the defendants caused him any harm, or what the “better” treatments were that supposedly would have been effective in dealing with his pain. This would have left a jury to rely only on their “imagination” as to what could have been done differently. Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., #18-2351, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 18097, 2019 WL 2498640 (7th Cir.). An Illinois prisoner had only a “nub” of a hand terminating at his left wrist with no functional fingers. At a prior facility, he was issued a low bunk pass by the medical director due to physical problems making it extremely difficult for him to use an upper bunk. An employee at his present prison noted the missing hand while carrying out routine intake screening but took no steps to ensure that he could use a lower bunk. Two requests by the prisoner to see a doctor to get a low bunk pass went unacknowledged. The prisoner then fell while trying to climb down from an upper bunk bed, and suffered a severe injury when he landed on his knee. He then finally was given a low bunk pass. He sued, claiming that the prison employee had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. A federal appeals court overturned summary judgment for the employee. It found that the evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that: the plaintiff suffered from an objectively serious medical condition, that the employee knew of the heightened risk of harm if he used an upper bunk bed, and that the employee deliberately failed to act to address that risk. Palmer v. Franz, #18-1384, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 19100 (7th Cir.). A woman who was ordered to be incarcerated for forty days in the county jail was informed that she was not to receive her twice daily dose of buprenorphine prescribed for an “opioid use disorder” while confined. She sued, seeking injunctive relief compelling the jail to provide her medication while she was incarcerated. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction, finding a sufficient likelihood of success combined with both a strong balance of harms and a public interest in favor of the plaintiff. A federal appeals court agreed, ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its preliminary assessment of the issues. Smith v. Aroostook County, #19-1340, 922 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2019). In a case where a man died in jail after having previously being bitten by a police dog, his family was entitled to sue the jail staff for the death, according to a federal trial court’s ruling. The decedent had been hiding in a lake after committing an armed robbery at a convenience store. Police sent in a dog, and during the struggle, the man was bitten on his hands and legs. He was first admitted to a public hospital, and later taken to the county jail’s infirmary. During his time in jail, his health deteriorated, and he died four days after his arrest. According to an autopsy, the bite on one of his legs led to an E.coli infection, which led to a fatal blood infection. Officially, he died of “septic shock with HIV as a likely contributing factor.” His parents filed a lawsuit against the jail’s medical director, four nurses, and the county alleging that their son’s worsening medical condition was ignored as a result of the “culture of neglect” at the facility. The plaintiffs later removed three of the nurses and the county from the lawsuit. The trial judge stated that the medical director examined the detainee, “an HIV-positive patient with a severe dog-bite wound and deliberately declined to play an active role in his subsequent treatment.” This, if true, was the "very essence of deliberate indifference," which is why he allowed the case to proceed. An appeal is pending. Bryant v. Orange County, Fla., #6:17-cv-142, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69121, 2019 WL 1787490 (M.D. Fla.). An inmate serving a life sentence at an Iowa prison claimed that five prison employees were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He had suffered a serious hip injury during an assault from a fellow prisoner. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment in favor of the defendants. There was no evidence in the record that the treating doctor or any other medical provider or prison staff provided substandard care during or after the hip surgery which was performed, and no evidence that defendants ever acted in deliberate disregard of the plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Cejvanovic v. Ludwick, #18-1370, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 13405, 2019 WL 1966787 (8th Cir.). Corrections officers who allegedly disregard visible and self-reported symptoms medical professionals believe to be flu symptoms were not deliberately indifferent to an obvious need for immediate medical attention. A federal appeals court affirmed the grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's federal civil rights claims against the correctional officers, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs after he suffered a stroke. In this case, while the officers were less than “sympathetic” to the plaintiff's continuing illness, they were not deliberately indifferent to an obvious need for immediate medical attention that was sufficient to establish a viable claim under the Eighth Amendment. Roberts v. Kopel, #17-3579, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 6876 (8th Cir.). A prisoner first complained about pain in his left knee in May 2009. Prescribed drugs did not help. After some delay, he saw an orthopedic surgeon in September 2010. An MRI exam was approved, but not actually conducted until February 2011. In August 2011, he had arthroscopic surgery. While his left knee was healing, the private corporation that provided prison medical care delayed approving an MRI of his right knee. One knee had to be sound before treatment of the other. In May 2012, he had an MRI exam on the right knee. It showed serious problems. Another arthroscopic surgery occurred in October 2012. This did not bring relief. Arthroplasty (knee replacement) was delayed while specialists determined whether his pulmonary and cardiology systems would handle the strain but took place in February 2015 and was successful. The prisoner claimed that the delays while waiting for surgeries showed deliberate indifference to his pain so that the pain became a form of unauthorized punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The defendants offered evidence that the delays could be attributed to a preference for conservative treatment before surgery and never to any desire to injure the prisoner or indifference to his pain. The trial court granted summary judgment to the individual defendants, ruling that none acted (or delayed acting) with the state of mind required for culpability. A federal appeals court agreed, and affirmed judgment in favor of the private medical services corporation. Private corporations, when deemed to be state actors in lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. 1983, are not subject to vicarious liability. It could be liable for its own unconstitutional policies, but the policies to which the prisoner pointed reflected medical judgment rather than a constitutional problem. Gaston v. Ghosh, #17-3618, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 9833, 2019 WL 1467118 (7th Cir.). After a detainee died in a jail holding cell, a lawsuit was filed against the jail guards under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Alabama law, accusing them of deliberate indifference to the decedent’s serious medical needs. A federal appeals court overturned dismissal of the lawsuit and held that qualified immunity did not shield the guards from the plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claims where a reasonable jury could conclude that the guards were not entitled to rely on a trooper's statement that the detainee was just drunk, particularly because he reported injuries from a car accident. Furthermore, a reasonable jury could conclude that the guard’s willful disregard of what they heard and observed during the night made them deliberately indifferent to the detainee’s serious medical needs, and that the trial court erred by requiring the plaintiff to present evidence that the guards knew the cause of the detainee’s injury and the specific nature of his medical problem. The court also held that the state agent immunity and Alabama Code 14-6-1 did not shield the guards from the plaintiff's state law claims if the guards potentially violated the detainee’s constitutional rights. Taylor v. Hughes, #17-14772, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 974 (8th Cir.). A prisoner alleged federal civil rights claims against various medical personnel at the Health Center and Correctional Institution for failure to adequately treat his health condition of constipation which led to complications. A federal appeals court ruled that the amended complaint substantially complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 by adequately putting the defendants on notice of the claims specifically asserted against each of them, and with Rule 20 by including allegations arising from the alleged failure of the named defendants to adequately treat his condition before his first surgery. However, the court held that the complaint failed to state a claim of any wrongdoing against three defendants. Accordingly, the court held that dismissal of the lawsuit was improper except with respect to those three defendants. Harnage v. Lightner, #18-1559, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 4589, 2019 WL 637975 (2nd Cir.). Prisoners who were exposed to a heightened risk of getting Valley Fever (coccidioidomycosis), a disease contracted by inhaling spores of a certain fungus, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against state officials for money damages, claiming that this exposure constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. African-American inmates also brought a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, claiming that African-American inmates were particularly likely to get Valley Fever and suffer serious injury. A federal appeals court ruled that several of the defendants could not be sued at all because they were not personally involved in any alleged violations. The court further held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity against claims that they were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and also entitled to qualified immunity against claims that they racially discriminated against African-American inmates. In this case, the opinion stated, it would not have been “obvious” to any reasonable official that they had to segregate prisoners by race or do more than a federal receiver previously appointed told them to do. All the prisoners were treated the same, regardless of race. Hines v. Youseff, #15-16145, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 3312 (9th Cir.). Summary judgment was properly granted to a female correctional officer because, based on the evidence presented, no reasonable juror could find that she was deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of the plaintiff prisoner. The plaintiff was severely beaten by other inmates at a medium-security prison. He claimed that the defendant was deliberately indifferent while doing her round, resulting in a delay in medical treatment, which exacerbated her injuries. There was insufficient evidence that the defendant had the required culpable state of mind of deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s need for medical attention. Leite v. Goulet, #18-1682, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 35561 (1st Cir.). After a prisoner was stabbed by a fellow inmate and then died at a hospital, his estate filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming that the warden violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by illegally interfering with the prisoner’s end-of-life medical care with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity, as his alleged actions, including the entry of a do not resuscitate order and the decision to remove the prisoner from artificial life support, did not fall within the scope of his discretionary authority. Alabama law established that defendant's discretionary authority did not extend to such actions and therefore he was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Estate of Cummings v. Davenport, #17-13999, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 27909 (11th Cir.). A woman was arrested for failing to appear on a resisting-arrest charge was sent to jail. Her physical and mental health was deteriorating and she refused to eat and drink. Medical providers did little other than monitoring her, and she died. Her estate sued the county, jail officials, the jail’s contract medical provider, and its employees. A federal appeals court held that nothing in the record justified a finding of personal liability against the county defendants, who received assurances that the medical staff was regularly monitoring the detainee. Medical providers stated that the woman was stable and promised to send her to the hospital if necessary. The estate presented no evidence that some feature in the jail’s policy about hunger strikes or anything else caused her death. On claims against the medical providers, however, the record contained ample evidence from which a jury could infer that the doctors’ inaction, particularly delay in sending her to a hospital, diminished her chances of survival, so further proceedings were warranted. In an important development, the appeals court used the case to replace the deliberate indifference standard used for inadequate medical care, when it comes to pretrial detainees, with a standard requiring a showing of a lack of objective reasonableness. The deliberate indifference standard remains applicable in the 7th Circuit to inadequate medical care claims involving convicted prisoners. Miranda v. County of Lake, #17-1603, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018). The plaintiff prisoners asked for class action certification on claims that correctional officials violated the Eighth Amendment and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by inadequately providing medical screening and care for chronic Hepatitis C (HCV) viral infections. This, they alleged, exposed class members to a substantial risk of serious harm. A federal appeals court upheld class certification based on the evidence submitted. Postawko v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, #17-3029, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 34399 (8th Cir.). A federal appeals court upheld the denial of qualified immunity to a deputy when there was sufficient evidence to show that he was deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. The detainee came in highly intoxicated after being involved in a motor vehicle accident, did not seem to be doing well, and subsequently died in his cell. A jury could find that the prisoner was experiencing a medical need so obvious that a layperson would recognize the need for prompt medical attention, that the deputy did not perform the healthcare screening the jail policies required, and that it was clearly established at the time that booking him into jail would constitute deliberate indifference. The appeals court reversed, however, the denial of qualified immunity to the administrator of the jail and held that the administrator did not know that the deputy was inadequately trained or supervised. Barton v. Ledbetter, #17-2835, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 32200 (8th Cir.). An inmate whose medical record indicated that he was being followed “for high suspicion of multiple sclerosis” claimed that state-contracted health care providers violated the Eighth Amendment when they stopped administering his multiple sclerosis medication. His records also indicated, however, had discontinued taking Avonex “on his own due to undesirable side effects.” A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants, stating that while inmats have a right to adequate medical care, they have no right to receive a particular or requested course of treatment. The decision to halt his Avonex injections did not rise to a level akin to criminal recklessness and was probably not even negligent. Even if he did not refuse his injections, the defendants had good reason to end them. Since three different health care providers wrote in his medical record that he had complained to them about side effects; it was well within their independent medical judgment to stop administering Avonex. Additionally, the plaintiff did not allege that any harm occurred after the injections ended. After the injections were halted, the defendants continued to provide medical care—prescribing other medication, scheduling follow-ups, and requesting additional diagnostic tests. Accordingly, no rational trier of fact could find that the defendants were deliberately indifferent. Barr v. Pearson, #17-3786, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 33200 (8th Cir.). A man suffered severe burns while trying to commit a residential arson. He spent three weeks in a hospital before being released to police custody. He allegedly died of a doctor’s overdose of methadone while awaiting trial at a county correctional center. A lawsuit by his estate claimed deliberate indifference to his severe burn wounds and other medical needs. Claims against the treating physician and his private employer were settled. Summary judgment was entered against the remaining defendants, after a finding that the evidence was insufficient to show that any individual among them had acted with deliberate indifference. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently replaced the deliberate indifference standard with a standard requiring a showing of a lack of objective reasonableness for a claim challenging the medical care provided to a pretrial detainee such as the plaintiff, while retaining the deliberate indifference standard for inadequate medical care claims brought by convicted prisoners. See Miranda v. County of Lake, #17-1603, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018) .Measuring the evidence in the record under this new standard, the appeals court upheld the award of summary judgment to the individual defendants and a determination that the evidence did not support a claim for municipal liability against the County, McCann v. Ogle County, #17-3139, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 33646 (7th Cir.). A pretrial detainee sued a prison doctor and the private company he worked for, asserting both federal Eighth Amendment civil rights claims and state law negligence claims for inadequate medical care in treating her psoriasis, claiming that she did not receive previously prescribed injections that had been effective in treating that condition, but instead another medication that was on the facility’s preapproved formulary of drugs to be administered. Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court ruled that the trial court did not err in concluding that no reasonable jury could find that the doctor acted with deliberate indifference to the detainee’s serious medical needs. Zingg v. Groblewski, #17-2115, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 30527 (1st Cir.). After a prisoner was stabbed by a fellow inmate and then died at a hospital, his estate filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming that the warden violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by illegally interfering with the prisoner’s end-of-life medical care with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity, as his alleged actions, including the entry of a do not resuscitate order and the decision to remove the prisoner from artificial life support, did not fall within the scope of his discretionary authority. Alabama law established that defendant's discretionary authority did not extend to such actions and therefore he was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Estate of Cummings v. Davenport, #17-13999, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 27909 (11th Cir.). A private company provided medical care to Illinois inmates at certain facilities. One inmate experienced chronic ankle pain and consulted with doctors at his prison, requesting surgery. The doctors instead ordered more conservative treatment. When his pain persisted, the doctors considered referring him for surgical evaluation, which required the private company’s approval. It rejected requests for surgical evaluation but authorized the inmate to see a podiatrist, and an orthopedist three years later. The inmate sued the company, claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. A jury awarded him $10,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The trial judge ruled that the punitive-damages award violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive or arbitrary punishment and reduced the award to $50,000. A federal appeals court vacated. While the U.S. Supreme Court has warned that “few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages ... will satisfy due process,” the trial court had nine single digits from which to choose and decided that the Seventh Amendment did not require it to offer the plaintiff the choice of a new trial before it entered judgment on the reduced award. The decision was arbitrary and a procedural misstep. The appeals court remanded to give the plaintiff a choice between a reduced punitive-damages award and a new trial limited to damages. Beard v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., #16-1763, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 23316 (7th Cir.). A prisoner complained about inadequate medical treatment. His initial treatment was only for a rash. He received four further treatments, but increasingly experienced problems with daily living activities, and was finally rushed to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with a rare muscle disease and returned to the facility with medication. His condition worsened until he could no longer eat, sleep, sit up, lie down, or move. He tried to prepare a complaint form about his allegedly inadequate treatment but was unable to do so. He was transported in a wheelchair to a dayroom for assistance, as he was unable to write. All of the recreational tables there, however, were occupied, and he was returned to his cell where no visitors were allowed after being denied permission to use a study table. Hospitalized for two months, he then returned to the facility, but did not file a grievance. He decided to sue and then learned that he first had to file a grievance. When he did so, it was rejected as untimely. An institutional examiner testified that his condition would have been “good cause” to extend the filing period for the grievance, but not for as long as it took him. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), his lawsuit was rejected for failure to exhaust administrative remedies within 14 days, as required by Wisconsin law. A federal appeals court vacated. Whether a grievance procedure is unavailable does not depend whether the defendants engaged in affirmative misconduct, but whether the plaintiff was not able to timely file the grievance through no fault of his own. Concluding that nothing prevented him from filing the grievance immediately after he returned to the facility improperly held him responsible for failing to follow a procedure of which he was not aware and which was not in the facility handbook. Lanaghan v. Koch, #17-1399, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 24565 (7th Cir.). A 52-year-old Indian national who was a non-citizen was arrested for failing to appear for jury duty, despite being actually ineligible for jury duty. She was also charged with resisting arrest because she pulled away from the officer. At the county jail, she was placed on suicide watch, transferred to ICE custody, and released within days. She was rearrested after failing to appear on the resisting arrest charge and was returned to the county jail. Her physical and mental health deteriorated and she refused to eat or drink. Medical personnel allegedly did little except for monitoring her until she died. Her estate sued the county, jail officials, and the jail’s contracted medical provider and its employees. Nothing in the record would justify any finding of personal liability against the county defendants who had been assured that medical staff were regularly monitoring the detainee. The medical providers had reported that she was stable and promised to send her to a hospital if it became necessary. The plaintiff also failed to show that any aspect of the jail’s policies caused the death. Judgment for the medical providers, however, was premature. There was ample evidence in the record from which a jury could decide that the doctors’ inaction diminished the detainee’s chances of survival. Miranda v. County of Lake, #17-1603, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 22229 (7th Cir.). A federal appeals court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) “gatekeeper function” against frivolous suits does not require a prison inmate to make a showing of a physical injury caused by an unconstitutional act. Rather, on Eighth Amendment claims, in order to recover compensatory damages, the PLRA requires a showing of some harm caused by some unconstitutional conduct that amounted to deliberate indifference and an accompanying showing of physical injury. In this prisoner inadequate medical care case, the plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment awarding him only nominal and no punitive damages. The trial court held that defendants violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while he was in their custody, but that the PLRA precluded plaintiff's recovery of compensatory damages because he failed to meet 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e)'s physical injury threshold. The federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiff's severe pain resulted from an actual physical injury when an officer's takedown move broke his shoulder, and thus he met the PLRA's physical injury requirement under section 1997e(e). Therefore, the appeals court reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to calculate compensatory damages that result from the pain differential, if any, that plaintiff experienced from having to take non-prescription pain relievers instead of the ten prescribed hydrocodone tablets. The trial court did not, however, abuse its discretion by denying punitive damages. McAdoo v. Martin, #17-1952, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 21876 (8th Cir.). A Michigan prisoner claimed that prison medical providers denied him required medical care for his end-stage liver disease (ESLD). Following his death, his brothers filed a revised complaint for his estate. Two doctors were granted summary judgment on Eighth Amendment claims. A federal appeals court affirmed. The prisoner failed to show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He did not establish the alleged wrongdoing “was objectively harmful enough to establish a constitutional violation and that the official acted with a culpable enough state of mind, rising above gross negligence.” Rhinehart v. Scutt, #17-2166, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 17749, 2018 Fed. App. 127P (6th Cir.). Jail personnel and medical providers were not held liable for the death of a prisoner, the plaintiff’s son, from a perforated duodenal ulcer in a detention center. In this case the record would not support a jury finding that the defendants were deliberately indifferent. The facts instead indicated a case of misdiagnosis rather than one of deliberate indifference. Winkler v. Madison, #17-6072, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 17384, 2018 Fed. App. 123p (6th Cir.). A prisoner became dizzy after receiving his medication one evening, then vomited and lost consciousness, hitting his head when he fell. Three hours passed before he was taken to a nearby hospital. He thought he might have received the wrong medication. Doctors stapled a deep laceration and found him to have suffered a serious concussion. His deliberate indifference claims against the officer who distributed the medication were rejected, as his actions were, at worst, a mistake, not rising to the level of deliberate indifference. After discovery, the trial court, through the magistrate, granted the remaining defendants (a nurse and a supervisor) summary judgment. A federal appeals court ruled that the matter could proceed to appeal, even though the officer was dismissed before he had an opportunity to consent to the disposition of the case by a magistrate. There was no final judgment until after the state (representing the defendants) filed its consent and the officer was a prison employee who stood in exactly the same position as the other two defendants for purposes of legal representation. DaSilva v. Rymarkiewicz, #16-1231, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 10315 (7th Cir.). A prisoner claimed that prison officials and correctional administrators were deliberately indifferent to a painful tumor that was growing on his neck and took actions that prevented him from filing a timely lawsuit on that claim. In screening the case, a trial judge dismissed it for impermissibly joining two unrelated sets of claims against different defendants. The prisoner moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), arguing that his claims were not unrelated. The trial judge denied the motion, stating that Rule 59(e) does not permit reconsideration of a non-final order of dismissal, and entered a judgment ending the case. A federal appeals court reversed, ruling that the trial judge misunderstood his discretion to consider the reconsideration motion. Though Rule 59(e) did not apply, a trial judge may reconsider an interlocutory order at any time before final judgment. The judge should have done so, and reading the complaint “generously,” the claims were related, so further proceedings were required. Terry v. Spencer, #17-2331, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 10784 (7th Cir.).
A Colorado inmate claimed that correctional medical providers were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by delaying his treatment for the hepatitis C virus (“HCV”), resulting in his suffering life-threatening permanent liver damage. A federal appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant the defendants summary judgment, concluding that the claims against four defendants were time-barred, and the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that a fifth defendant acted with deliberate indifference. The appeals court also vacated an injunction requiring the correctional department to test the plaintiff’s liver function every three months. Vasquez v. Davis, #17-1026, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 4347 (10th Cir.).The estate of a deceased prisoner sued the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health & Developmental Services, the agency responsible for overseeing state mental health hospitals and 49 other defendants, claiming that the prisoner died from severe malnutrition in a regional jail while awaiting a bed in a hospital. A federal appeals court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court's denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the state law claims and remanded those claims to the trial court. The appeals court also held that Eleventh Amendment absolute immunity did not bar the suit where the defendant Commissioner was being sued in her personal capacity and the plaintiff sought to recover only from her, and not the Commonwealth of Virginia. Finally, the appeals court held that the Commissioner was entitled to qualified immunity from suit on the section 1983 claims where no clearly established law dictated that housing mentally ill inmates in prisons, rather than transferring them to state mental health facilities, automatically and alone amounted to an objectively excessive risk to inmate health and safety. Adams v. Ferguson, #17-1484, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 5656 (4th Cir.). Overturning a magistrate judge’s denial of a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit claiming deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a federal appeals court found that the plaintiff diabetic prisoner had specifically alleged that prison officials cancelled his prescribed diet on multiple occasions, forcing him to consume high-sugar meals up to four times a day, contrary to the orders of his unit doctor. Construing the pro se pleadings liberally, the court found that the plaintiff had alleged a pattern of knowing interferences with prescribed medical care for his diabetes, despite his multiple complaints and his official grievance, which were all essentially ignored. These claims were sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference and therefore showed a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of his preliminary injunction. The plaintiff also claimed a substantial threat of irreparable injury. Jones v. TDCJ, #17-10302, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 2176 (5th Cir.). A woman pregnant with her tenth child was taken into custody on federal bank fraud charges when her pregnancy was in its 35th week. U.S. Marshals arranged for her housing at a facility with a full-time medical staff and a relationship with an obstetrics practice. Her blood pressure was high. No medical history was taken. She did not disclose that with her ninth pregnancy, she had an emergency cesarean section at 34 weeks. She signed a release but the facility did not obtain her prenatal care records. For 10 days, she had multiple contacts with medical staff, and told a nurse that she was not having any problems. She then refused to be seen and signed a refusal form. Days later, she awoke with pain and called for assistance. She was taken to a hospital by ambulance, but again denied having any complications or chronic medical problems. The nurse was unable to find fetal heart tones, and a doctor ordered an emergency cesarean section. The woman suffered a complete abruption of the placenta which stopped the flow of oxygen to the baby, who has severe, permanent disabilities. The abruption likely occurred in the ambulance or at the hospital, because the child would not have survived had it occurred earlier. Her father sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671, alleging medical malpractice. A federal appeals court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Placement and retention of the mother at the facility fell within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity. There was no indication that she required immediate care before the morning of the birth, when staff members promptly called for help. Lipsey v. United States, #17-1063, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 203 (7th Cir.). A prisoner was injured while lifting a heavy door at his prison job, hearing a “snap” in his back and experiencing pain in his leg and hip. He was dissatisfied to the response of the prison’s medical staff o his requests for treatment, receiving a three-year runaround, during which his pain was ignored. He further claimed that the Clinical Director canceled his insulin prescription in retaliation for him filing a complaint about the inadequate care. As an insulin-dependent diabetic, he was unable to control his blood sugar and suffered additional pain and harm. He filed a second complaint with the prison about the insulin deprivation, and sued the Clinical Director and another prison physician. A federal appeals court affirmed the rejection of these claims, acknowledging that the prisoner’s “allegations are troublesome,” but noting important differences between ordinary, or even aggravated, medical malpractice, which this might have been, and the deliberate indifference required for an Eighth Amendment violation. Cesal v. Molina, #15-2562, 851 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2017). An arrestee stated that he suffered from seizures caused by a prior head injury, that he took medication to treat his condition, and that he had not taken his medication. Placed in a “bullpen” cell, he suffered a seizure 12 hours later and was taken to a hospital. A lawsuit claimed that after he returned to the city jail he was not given medical attention although he displayed symptoms of deteriorating health. Instead he was shackled, with a spit mask placed on his face. Officers allegedly ignored his cries for help and complaints of difficulty breathing. Then he was transferred to the county facility, where nurses found him medically unfit to be booked. Despite this, they allegedly gave him no medical care and did not remove the mask, which was seeping blood. When a nurse finally removed the mask, he was no longer breathing. He died less than 24 hours after his arrest. A trial court rejected his family’s claims against individual defendants and their argument that the city had a de facto policy of failing to investigate in-custody deaths and ignoring detainees’ medical difficulties. A federal appeals court reversed in part, ruling that the evidence, including surveillance footage, while disputed, would permit a jury to find liability on civil rights claims against some individual defendants. Rejecting claims of qualified immunity, the appeals court found that it was clearly established that a detainee was entitled to objectively reasonable medical care for a serious medical need. The alleged lack of care, if true, was objectively unreasonable. Estate of Perry v. Wenzel, #16-3130, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 18010 (7th Cir.). Several correctional officers touring a dorm at night observed nothing unusual about an inmate asleep in his bunk. At 3:45 a.m., when the dorm supervisor started awakening inmates for kitchen duty, he saw he prisoner breathing abnormally and making noises, with his body making sudden moves. Despite efforts to wake him, the prisoner was unresponsive. The supervisor noted this in the logbook and called an officer, who later denied that he was given all information. The prisoner did not wake up for breakfast, and when other prisoners returned from the meal, the supervisor heard someone shout “man down!” He called a medical emergency, and the prisoner was pronounced dead at 6:54 a.m. He had died from a methadone overdose, taking pills he bought from another prisoner. Medical experts stated that he would have fully recovered if he had received medical care between 3:45 and 5:48 a.m. A federal appeals court reversed summary judgment for the defendants on Eighth Amendment claims, finding that there was a material dispute of fact as to whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s severe medical condition. The court also ruled, however, that the decedent’s father did establish a substantive due process violation from the loss of his familial relationship due to the prisoner’s death because there was no evidence that either of the correctional facility officers intentionally interfered in the father’s familial relationship with his adult son. Orlowski v. Milwaukee County, #16-2166, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 17991 (7th Cir.). A prisoner could not show a jury that correctional officials and private medical service providers at a prison acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs when his reports of abdominal pain and colon spasms were thoroughly investigated. Medical providers were able to substantiate only a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome, and the prisoner failed to produce any evidence that his subsequent treatment for this condition deviated from accepted medical practices and standards. Physical exams and ordered X‐rays, an ultrasound, bloodwork, stool cultures, and other tests were performed, but the results were consistently normal. The decision whether further diagnostic testing, such as a colonoscopy, was necessary was “a classic example” of a matter for medical judgment. Proctor v. Sood, #16-1942, 863 F.3d 563 (7th Cir. 2017). A federal statute, 42 U.S.C. Sec 1396d(29)(A), bars the payment of federal Medicaid funds for the medical care of “any individual who is an inmate of a public institution (except as a patient in a medical institution),” A person is not, however, an “inmate of a public institution” if he resides in the public institution “for a temporary period pending other arrangements appropriate to his needs.” The state of Ohio sought to classify pretrial detainees under age 19 as non-inmates, living in a public institution for only “a temporary period pending other arrangements appropriate to [their] needs,” for whom the state could claim Medicaid reimbursement. Federal Medicaid officials rejected this, finding that the inmate exclusion recognized “no difference” between adults and juveniles, or convicted detainees and those awaiting trial. A federal appeals court agreed, ruling that the involuntary nature of the stay is the determining factor. The exception does not apply when the individual is involuntarily residing in a public institution awaiting adjudication of a criminal charge, whether adult or juvenile. Ohio Department of Medicaid v. Price, #16-3550, 410 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 2017). An Illinois prisoner claimed that nearly two dozen prison employees both deliberately ignored his medical needs and retaliated against him because he filed grievances and lawsuits. He claimed that he received inadequate supplies of toothpaste, laundry detergent, and mailing supplies at three different prisons over a period of six years. Screening the complaint, the trial court narrowed the number of defendants and then granted summary judgment for the defendants who remained. “This lawsuit is not the first one,” the appeals court commented in upholding the result, in which the prisoner “has tossed into a single complaint a mishmash of unrelated allegations against unrelated defendants.” He had engaged in “nearly constant” litigation during 2009 and 2010. Owens v. Godinez, #15-3892, 860 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2017). An inmate suffered from a severe form of psoriasis that causes debilitating pain from large and deep fissures that form on the bottom of his feet. Soriatane was the medication that had provided some relief in the past, when multiple other treatments had proved useless. That medication, however, was not on the approved drug formulary for Ohio prisons, and the facility could not obtain it at the time of the prisoner’s arrival. He developed fissures on his heels, pain, and difficulty walking after weeks without the drug, resulting in multiple visits to the infirmary, during which doctors unsuccessfully tried other drugs. He finally received Soriatane after a year. Overturning summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for the defendants, a federal appeals court found that it was “clearly established” by 2011 that failing to provide a prisoner with needed medication, choosing to prescribe an arguably less effective treatment method, and continuing on a treatment path that was clearly known to be ineffective could constitute a constitutional violation and support a finding of deliberate indifference. Darrah v. Krisher, #15-4136, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 13502, 2017 Fed. App. 0163P (6th Cir.). A prisoner claimed that staff members at a facility improperly delayed giving him medical attention for a painful back condition, as well as using excessive force when they eventually took him to a hospital for treatment. A federal appeals court vacated summary judgment for the defendants, noting a failure to preserve videotaped evidence of the plaintiff in his cell during the time in question. It also ruled that reasonable jury could find that a security supervisor and a nurse were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Lewis v. McLean, #16-1220, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 13184 (7th Cir.). An inmate was awarded $307,733.82 on his federal and state claims that correctional officers hit him, causing a fracture to his eye socket, and then left him in his cell without medical attention. A federal appeals court upheld the liability award, rejecting an argument that sovereign immunity barred the state law claim. It reversed and remanded an attorneys’ fee award. Under 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d), the attorney fee award must first be satisfied from up to 25 percent of the damage award, and the trial court did not have discretion to reduce that maximum percentage to 10%. Murphy v. Smith, #15-3384, 844 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2017).Parents of a prisoner who died while on suicide watch after falling twice in his cell were awarded damages by a jury, including $1 million for wrongful death and lesser amounts for denial of adequate medical care and pain and suffering. Upholding the trial court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law for the defendants, a federal appeals court found the evidence sufficient to sustain the damage awards. It also ruled that the close-observation policy at the prison was ministerial and the corrections officers were not entitled to official immunity. The trial court did not clearly and prejudicially abuse its discretion by determining that evidence of what medical staff thought but did not disclose was irrelevant and, therefore, inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402. Letterman v. Lammers, #16-1410, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 11052 (8th Cir.). While a pretrial detainee in a county jail, the plaintiff was diagnosed with meningitis, and then suffered multiple strokes, resulting in permanent injuries. He sued, claiming inadequate medical care. Rejecting this claim, a federal appeals court found that all of the health care providers at the jail acted within the course and scope of their discretionary authority in providing the plaintiff with care. They were entitled to qualified immunity as they did not act with deliberate indifference. Since there was no constitutional violation, there was also no basis for supervisory liability on the part of the sheriff. Nam Dang v. Sheriff, Seminole County, Florida, #15-14842, 856 F.3d 842 (11th Cir. 2017). |
Police officers arrested a bipolar delusional man who had not taken his medication and took him to a jail where he died of a heart attack after he attacked a corrections officer and was restrained. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity, as there was no clearly established constitutional requirement that they take him to a hospital rather than a jail. Corrections officers at the jail were also entitled to qualified immunity even if they had reason to know the detainee was bipolar, as no prior case clearly established that the detainee’s medical instability required immediate medical attention. Failure to train claims against the city failed. The city could not be found to be deliberately indifferent to a constitutional right that was not clearly established. The officers were also entitled to immunity under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2744.03(A)(6)(b) as to state law claims because no reasonable jury could have found recklessness. Arrington-Bey v. City of Bedford Heights, #16-3317, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 9207, 2017 Fed. App. 112P (6th Cir.)
An inmate repeatedly experienced and complained about chest pain, as well as pain in his neck, arms, and shoulders, together with dizziness and shortness of breath. After he was taken to a hospital emergency room, cardiologists recommended that he undergo a cardiac catheterization procedure to find out whether he needed surgery or a stent to prevent a heart attack. Correctional doctors employed by a private contractor, however, would not approve the procedure. Three grievances concerning this were denied, after which the chest pains reoccurred, and an outside cardiologist then recommended the medication Ranexa. Because that heart drug was not on the prison’s drug formulary, doctors at the prison denied him that medication, instead keeping him on another drug that made him dizzy. Chest pains over the next two and a half years resulted in multiple hospitalizations. He then received cardiac catheterization, and heart disease was ruled out. He was later provided with Ranexa. But after a six month prescription ran out, renewal was denied and his symptoms returned. A federal appeals court upheld the rejection of claims against a physician’s assistant for failing to send the prisoner to a hospital emergency room because he could not show that this constituted deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, since he did not actually suffer a heart attack or similarly serious problem at the time in question. Because there were factual issues as to whether the plaintiff exhausted his available administrative remedies on claims against three prison physicians that they denied him a medication that had been effective to control his angina pain, further proceedings on those claims were ordered. Mattox v. Edelman, #16-1412, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 4510, 2017 Fed. App. 59P (6th Cir.).
An inmate claimed that correctional
employees failed to prevent an assault on him by his cellmate that caused a
broken ankle and also left the injury untreated for months. The trial court
granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the prisoner had failed
to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). A federal appeals court
reversed, finding that the plaintiff had made a timely complaint to the
facility’s complaint examiner and filed a second administrative complaint.
Correspondence was then sent to him at the facility after he was transferred
elsewhere to a mental health facility where he was forced to take psychotropic
drugs. The trial court’s ruling ignored the fact that he had done the best he
could under these circumstances Prisoners can’t be required to exhaust remedies
that are unavailable to them, the court commented. Weiss
v. Barribeau, #16-3039 2017 U.S. App.
Lexis 6063 (7th Cir.).
Correctional officers were
entitled to qualified immunity on an excessive force claim brought on behalf of
the estate of an inmate who died. The prisoner was actively resisting the
extraction procedure by ignoring directives to lie down on his bunk and resisting
the officers’ efforts to subdue him once they entered his cell, and their
testimony about the degree of his resistance was corroborated. Under the
totality of these circumstances, none of their actions, either singly or in
combination, amounted to an objectively unreasonable application of force.
Genuine issues of fact, however, remained on the question of whether they were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they allegedly
allowed him to scream, howl, and bang against his cell door for eight hours
without attempting to talk to him or seek medical care for him. Ryan v.
Armstrong, #16-1341, 850 F.3d 419 (8th Cir. 2017).
An Illinois prisoner sued a
prison doctor and nurse for alleged deliberate indifference to his pain following
nine abdominal surgeries, the management of his diet, and inattention to a
possible renal cell tumor. Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, a
federal appeals court found insufficient evidence to show that either of the
defendants had ignored a substantial risk of harm to the prisoner. Every time
he went to the medical center he was evaluated and treated. He was also told to
return if his symptoms continued. He had no right to dictate the specifics of
his treatment or whether his treatment required that he be transferred. The
doctor discontinued his Vicodin prescription but was engaged in efforts to
manage his pain, and his active monitoring of the prisoner’s diet was the
opposite of deliberate indifference. Harper v. Santos. #15-1903, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 2521 (7th Cir.).
An Illinois inmate suffered an asthma
attack in his segregation unit cell, which had no emergency call button. A
number of hours later, his cellmate alerted guards by banging on the door, and the
inmate was taken to a prison medical unit operated by a private company.
Wheezing and having difficulty breathing, he was given medications and started
on oxygen by a nurse, who then called a doctor, who was on-call for several
prisons. He slept through the call, but later returned the call, prescribing
medications, and then ordering the inmate sent to a hospital via ambulance when
his difficulties continued. At the emergency room, more medications were
administered for two hours before a breathing tube was inserted. Then the
inmate died. A federal appeals court upheld a jury verdict in favor of the
warden, the private healthcare company, and the guards. Evidence in the case
didn’t support a reasonable inference that the warden consciously disregarded a
substantial risk of harm to the inmate by failing to install emergency call
buttons or to fill the vacant position of permanent medical director in a
timely manner, or that a company policy caused the death. Chatham v. Davis, #14-3318, 839 F.3d 679 (7th Cir.
2016). .
Upon arrival at a new unit
at a prison, an inmate told a guard that he had a brain tumor and was entitled
to a lower bunk. The guard stated that he had to just follow his upper bunk
assignment. The inmate subsequently fell out of the bunk, was examined in a
hospital emergency room, and returned to the prison, where his upper bunk
assignment continued. The prisoner failed to follow the procedure for
requesting a new bunk assignment, but continued to complain to the guard. He
then broke his back when he again fell out of his bunk. After surgery, he was
again temporarily returned to the upper bunk. He sued the guard he complained
to and the warden, but not the guard responsible for making bunk assignments or
medical personnel responsible for determining which prisoners had a medical
need for a lower bunk. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the
defendants. Inaction after receiving an inmate’s complaint about someone else’s
alleged misconduct was insufficient to impose liability.
Estate of Miller v. Marberry, #15-1497, 2017
U.S. App. Lexis 1655 (7th Cir.).
A former pretrial detainee asserted that a private
orthopedic doctor, as well as a jail nurse and doctor, were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs after he fell, broke his left humerus,
dislocated the hardwear in his arm, and began to suffer extreme pain. Summary
judgment was upheld for the private orthopedic doctor, since he had relayed his
diagnosis of the plaintiff's arm to jail officials and had no responsibility to
oversee the continuing medical decisions of the jail, nor was he informed about
the subsequent alleged lack of treatment or severe pain. The jail nurse and
doctor, however, were not entitled to qualified immunity, as the evidence could
be interpreted as showing that they each knowingly and deliberately inflicted
pain on the plaintiff by failing to provide timely medical treatment. Melton v.
Abston, #15-11412, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 20681 (11th Cir.).
A former federal prisoner could proceed with his
claims that a prison doctor and prison administrator acted with deliberate
indifference in failing to provide him with needed insulin and in allegedly
failing to provide aid to him after he used an emergency phone or for two to
five days after he reported vomiting blood and other signs of evident physical
distress. If true, they disregarded a substantial risk that serious bodily
injury would result or had already occurred. Scinto, Sr. v. Warden Stansberry,
#15-1587, 841 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2016).
A prisoner heard a
"pop" and experienced extreme pain while climbing some stairs. A
doctor at the prison infirmary prescribed Vicodin, crutches, and a week of
"lay-in" rest. The injury was listed as an Achilles tendon rupture by
the medical director, who modified the instructions by mandating an MRI and an
orthopedic examination on an "urgent" basis. A lockdown at the
facility resulted in cancelation of three medical appointments, so that he only
received an orthopedic boot eight weeks later. The prisoner claimed that he
still experienced ankle stiffness, soreness, and pain a year later. His lawsuit
claimed that the medical director had been deliberately indifferent in failing
to immediately immobilize his ankle with a cast or boot, and that another doctor
later was deliberately indifferent in failing to order physical therapy. While
a federal appeals court panel affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, a
rehearing en banc reversed. It stated that even when a doctor disputes knowing
that he was exposing a plaintiff patient to a substantial risk of harm,
evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that he knew that the
treatment being provided was deficient. There was sufficient evidence to defeat
summary judgment for the defendants. Petties v. Carter, #14-2674, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016).
An arrestee suffered an injury to his hand in a fight
prior to his arrest. A trial court properly granted summary judgment on a
deliberate indifference claim against a jail nurse as her treatment of his injury,
if at all deficient, was at most negligent, which was insufficient for a
federal civil rights claim, and the plaintiff's own attorney agreed that there
was no medical evidence in the record to support the plaintiff's claim that a
five-day delay in treatment caused a detrimental effect to his hand. Further,
this isolated incident was insufficient to support municipal liability claims.
Corwin v. City of Independence, MO, #15-1732, 829 F.3d 695 (8th Cir. 2016).
While serving a probation-revocation sentence, a
prisoner fell ill with a rare form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. A doctor at first
merely diagnosed it as an infection and prescribed antibiotics and some
nonprescription pain relievers. Two months later, the doctor ordered a biopsy
that discovered the cancer. The prisoner sued the doctor and the prison's
private medical provider for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs during the two months his cancer went undiagnosed. Summary
judgment for the defendants was upheld as there was no evidence from which a
jury could infer that the doctor was subjectively indifferent to the prisoner's
condition. Without expert testimony, a lay jury could not infer that because
amoxicillin and Bactrim did not work, it was obvious to the doctor that the
doxycycline and Augmentin also would fail. To survive summary judgment, the
prisoner needed to present evidence sufficient to show that decision was
"so far afield of accepted professional standards as to raise the
inference that it was not actually based on a medical judgment." He failed
to do so. Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., #15-1647, 2016 U.S. App.
Lexis 18416 (7th Cir.).
A federal prisoner suffered burns on his leg,
foot, and ankle while working in the prison kitchen. His second-degree burn was
treated by a nurse and he returned to the healthcare unit daily for cleaning
and dressing of his wound. A physician's assistance told him that the pain and
numbness he was experiencing were probably normal and that he should return in
six months. When he did so, he was told that his symptoms were probably
permanent. A doctor allegedly refused to examine him, look up his records, or
authorize any treatment. The doctor allegedly told him that he would not have
gotten burned if he wasn't in prison, and that only "God" could help
him. He also allegedly threatened to write up a disciplinary report if the
prisoner complained again. The doctor disputed this. A federal appeals court
upheld summary judgment for a prison administrator who was not a medical
professional, but reversed it as to the doctor. A reasonable jury might infer
that personal hostility, divorced from medical judgment, motivated the doctor's
refusal to authorize any further treatment, including from a burn specialist
that the prisoner's family would have paid for. Rivera v. Gupta, #15-3462, 2016
U.S. App. Lexis 16544 (7th Cir.).
A prison doctor sent an inmate to an off-site
orthopedic surgeon when he broke his wrist. X-rays were taken and instructions
were given that the prisoner should return in three weeks. The prison doctor
did not follow those instructions, but waited almost seven weeks to send the
prisoner back. By then, the wrist had healed at an improper angle and two
surgeries were needed to correct the problem. A federal appeals court
overturned summary judgment for the prison doctor. There was evidence from
which it could be found that rather than simply disagreeing with the
specialist, which would have been insufficient to prove deliberate
indifference, the prison doctor consciously disregarded the specialist's
instructions. Zaya v. Sood, #15-1470, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 16374 (7th Cir.),
A pretrial detainee asserted that medical care at a
county jail fell below constitutional standards as a matter of official policy,
custom, or practice.The 2008 findings from a U.S. Department of Justice
investigation of health care at the jail found systemic flaws in the jail's
scheduling, record-keeping, and grievance procedures that produced health care
below the minimal requirements of the U.S. Constitution. In this case, a
federal appeals court reversed the trial court’s refusal to allow admission of
the report as evidence toward meeting a plaintiff’s burden of proving an
unconstitutional custom, policy, or practice. The appeals court concluded that
it should be admitted under the hearsay exception for civil cases in Federal
Rule of Evidence 803(8)(A)(iii) for factual findings from legally authorized
investigations. Daniel v. Cook County, #15-2832, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 14886
(7th Cir.).
Before his incarceration, a prisoner had marbled
implanted in and tattoos drawn on his penis. While incarcerated, he underwent
surgery to remove the marbles. He claimed that prison officials threatened him
with segregation for the rest of his sentence and loss of eligibility for
parole if he did not consent to the surgery. He claimed that he suffered
physical injury and mental anguish because of the surgery, and that there was
no security or penological justification for the requirement. A federal appeals
court held that the plaintiff alleged possible Eighth Amendment and Fourth
Amendment violations as well as a class-of-one equal protection claim. Because
the trial court did not consider the plaintiff's due process claim, the appeals
court ordered further proceedings on that claim. King, Jr. v. Rubenstein,
#15-6382, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis10276 (4th Cir.).
Two prisoners at a federally-owned and
contractor-run prison sued the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims
Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346, after they contracted coccidioidomycosis (cocci).
They claimed that the government failed to protect them from contracting this
illness. An independent contractor exception to the FTCA did not bar liability.
The Bureau of Prisons' duty to warn prisoners before transferring them to this
facility arose outside of its contractual relationship with the company running
the prison. As the owner of the facility, the U.S. government had a duty under
California law to exercise reasonable care in the ownership and management of
the property, and state law recognizes a special relationship between jailer
and prisoner. Additionally, the BOP did not delegate all of its duties to the
contractor once the prisoners arrived at the prison, and explicitly excluded
the contractor from participating in the development of a cocci prevention
policy. Edison v. United States, #14-15472, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 9250 (9th
Cir.).
A Native American inmate claimed to have
contracted Hepatitis C while participating in a communal pipe-smoking ceremony
at a prison. He sued the Executive Director of the state prison agency for
violating his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment by failing to protect him from the risk of contracting communicable
diseases, including Hepatitis C. A federal appeals court noted that there was
no policy requiring the plaintiff to participate in the communal pipe ceremony,
and he did so voluntarily based on his religious beliefs. He therefore failed
to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. Legate v. Livingston,
#15-40079, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 9106 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner in a prison job as an electrician's
assistant fell off a ladder and suffered an umbilical hernia. His lawsuit
claimed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The trial court
granted a preliminary injunction and ordered the prisoner's evaluation for
surgery. He then received surgery on his hernia. He sought damages for the pain
he suffered because of prison officials' refusal to authorize the surgery prior
to the lawsuit. Rejecting this, a federal appeals court found the individual
defendants entitled to qualified immunity because they relied on legitimate
medical opinions, and it was at least debatable whether they had complied with
the Eighth Amendment. Hamby v. Hammond, #15-35283, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7894
(9th Cir. 2016)
A prisoner serving a life sentence was
diagnosed with arthritis and high cholesterol, and received a low-cholesterol
diet planned by a prison dietician for ten years. Then a new warden fired the
dietician and cancelled all special diets, as well as decreasing the frequency
of outdoor recreation. The prisoner asserted cruel and unusual punishment
claims, as well as an equal protection claim based on the assertion that other
Illinois prisons provided prescription diets and more outdoor recreation. While
upholding summary judgment on claims relating to outdoor recreation, a federal
appeals court found that the defendants were not entitled to it on claims
relating to the cancellation of the prisoner's prescription diet. McDonald v.
Hardy, #15-1102, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 8535 (7th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee in a county jail developed
severe and persistent pain in his abdomen and back. A CT scan revealed a
paratracheal mass, and he had trouble breathing, as well as experiencing
partial paralysis as the mass rapidly grew. His lawsuit claims that medical
personnel at the jail were aware of these difficulties, but accused him of
malingering, merely giving him over the counter medications and ordering him to
seek psychiatric care. After about four months, his condition severely
deteriorated, and he was taken to a hospital, where lung cancer was diagnosed,
leading to his death two months later. Overturning the dismissal of his mother's
lawsuit, a federal appeals court found that a reasonable jury could find that
pervasive systemic deficiencies in the jail's medical care were the
"moving force" behind the decedent's injury and death. Dixon v. Cook County,
Illinois, #13-3634, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 6459 (7th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee in a county jail fell and
hurt his back. He was not able to see a doctor for a month. Even then, he
claimed, officers did not move him, although a doctor determined to use a lower
bunk. There was no ladder to get to his upper bunk, so he was forced to sleep
on the floor until released from custody. The trial court granted summary
judgment to the defendants, stating that “it is undisputed that Plaintiff never
received a lower bunk permit at any time while at the jail.” Reversing, a
federal appeals court found that it was in fact disputed and that there was
evidence that he did receive a doctor's order that he be assigned to a lower
bunk. Bolling v. Carter, #15-2254, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7521 (7th Cir.).
A 59-year-old African-American man civilly
committed as a sexually violent predator sued state employees, claiming that he
was improperly denied certain treatments for Hepatitis C. Specifically, he
claimed that a doctor used an explicitly racial classification to deny him
interferon and ribavirin treatment since such treatment had been largely
unsuccessful on African-American males. In addition, after reviewing the
plaintiff's biopsy results, the doctor told him that his Hepatitis C had not
progressed to a level that would justify the harsh side effects of the
requested treatment. Several years later, the plaintiff was placed on
interferon and ribavirin, and the treatment was ultimately unsuccessful.
Federal civil rights claims against the defendants in their individual
capacities were not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, since that immunity
only extends to claims against the state, such as claims against the defendants
in their official capacities. But it was not clearly established that the use of
race-related success-of-treatment data as a factor in a medical treatment
decision would be unconstitutional, so the doctor was entitled to qualified
immunity. Mitchell v. State of Washington, #13-36217, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 4648
(9th Cir.).
A man intoxicated from PCP use was arrest for a
disturbance and then transported a short distance to a jail, where he died from
PCP toxicity. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the
defendants on claims under the Texas Wrongful Death statute, as the plaintiff,
the decedent's mother, was unable to produce evidence that the alleged denial
of medical care caused the decedent's death. Slade v. City of Marshall,
15-40517, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 2323 (5th Cir.).
A man arrested for DUI was placed in a holding
cell at a police station and died there. Summary judgment in favor of the
defendants on claims for excessive force and denial of medical care was
improper. From the evidence, a reasonable jury could have concluded that the
injuries suffered by the arrestee were the result of excessive force in
transporting him to the holding cell, or it could disbelieve that. A trial was
required. Miranda-Rivera v. Toledo-Davila, #14-1535, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 2480
(1st Cir.).
Prior to incarceration, a prisoner had surgery
for laryngeal cancer, leaving him with a tracheotomy tube. Other medical
problems followed, involving ongoing memory issues, hypothyroidism, depression,
smoking, and alcohol abuse. After his incarceration, medical personnel noted
spikes in his blood pressure, an occasional low pulse, low oxygen saturation
level, confusion, and anger. His condition worsened, with his symptoms
suggesting acute renal failure. He then died after a short hospital stay. His
mother filed a federal class action lawsuit, claiming that the failure to
implement a departmental health care service directive requiring a plan for the
management of chronic diseases constituted deliberate indifference to the
prisoner's serious medical needs. Upholding summary judgment for the private
medical provider that furnished medical services to prisoners at the state
prison, a federal appeals court found that the claim failed because no evidence
was shown that the failure to implement the directive led to a widespread
practice of deliberate indifference against not only the inmate, but other
inmates as well. As there was no evidence of either a series of incidents or a
widespread practice of ignoring the needs of prisoners with chronic diseases,
it could not be inferred that the failure to implement the directive was the
result of deliberate indifference. Glisson v. Corr. Med. Servs, Inc., #15-1419,
2016 U.S. App. Lexis 2666 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that a nursing supervisor had
been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to take
action in a timely manner when the artery comprising his dialysis access port
ruptured. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendant
when the prisoner failed to present evidence that the alleged delay in treatment
had a specific detrimental impact. Jackson v. Riebold, #14-2775, 2016 U.S. App.
Lexis 3180 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner was diagnosed with a painful hernia
when his incarceration began in 1995, and a second hernia in 2000. Outside
doctors concluded that surgery was needed to repair them, but correctional
officials and the company which provided medical care for inmates allegedly
delayed until May 2007, when both hernias required emergency surgical repair.
The prisoner sued over the delay and settled his claim with the private medical
provider for $273,250, and signing a release of further claims against them and
the doctors. A second surgery did not occur, however, until 2013, and the
prisoner again sued. The trial court, based on the release, granted summary
judgment to the defendants. A federal appeals court reversed, as the release
did not mean that the medical provider was free to ignore the recurrent hernia,
which allegedly grew increasingly painful and to act with deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need by delaying the second surgery. The
plaintiff claimed that this was done under a policy that classified all hernia
operations as elective surgery. Heard v. Tilden, #15-1732, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis
387 (7th Cir.).
Late at night, an inmate who suffered from
chronic high blood pressure woke up with excruciating pain in his chest and
left arm, and symptoms of a heart attack. A guard and supervising lieutenant
contacted the nurse on call, who told them that the prisoner's condition was
not an emergency, and told them that the prisoner should go to the infirmary in
the morning. Almost four hours after what proved to be a heart attack, the
prisoner went to the infirmary and was taken to a hospital by ambulance. A
federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the guard and prison doctor
on deliberate indifference claims, but reversed the dismissal of such claims
against the supervising lieutenant and the on-call nurse, stating that
“civilization requires more in a life and death situation,” questioning “what
the judge thinks the minimum level of care is to which a prisoner who is
suffering a heart attack is entitled.” The supervising lieutenant told the
prisoner that she believed that he was having a heart attack, and she had
authority to call 911 to seek emergency medical care, yet failed to do so. The
nurse, when contacted, made no efforts through tests or an examination to
determine whether immediate emergency medical care was needed. Mathison v.
Moats, #14-3549, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 2138 (7th Cir.).
A federal prisoner had a prostate
operation performed by a doctor who was not a Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
employee. He later noticed that the amount of his ejaculate was reduced, and
the doctor diagnosed him with retrograde ejaculation, advising that a specific
medication should be prescribed to heal a hole opened up during the laser
surgery, in order to prevent the prisoner's ejaculate from going into his
bladder. The prisoner was afraid that without the recommended treatment, he
might experience impotence. The BOP declined to provide the medication, taking
the position that treatment of a sexual dysfunction is not "medically
necessary." It also stated that medical providers should not talk to
inmates about ejaculation, "since it is a prohibited sexual act." The
trial court held that the prisoner's claims could survive summary judgment
because the prisoner had alleged that retrograde ejaculation could make him
sterile and that prisoners had a fundamental right to preserve their procreative
abilities for possible use after their release from custody. A federal appeals
court reversed, finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified
immunity. No clearly established law guaranteed a prisoner's right to treatment
for infertility, erectile dysfunction, or retrograde ejaculation. Michtavi v.
Scism, #14-4104, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 21553 (3rd Cir.).
A transsexual prisoner claimed that defendant
prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to her serious medical
needs by refusing to provide hormone replacement therapy for her Gender
Identity Disorder (GID). The plaintiff's claims against the defendants in their
official capacities were barred by sovereign immunity. The defendants in their
individual capacities were entitled to qualified immunity because the evidence,
even viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, did not show an
Eighth Amendment violation. The appeals court noted that "numerous"
mental health professionals had evaluated the plaintiff, but that none of them
reached a diagnosis of GID or stated that GID treatment was appropriate. The
fact that the plaintiff disagreed with their medical judgment was no basis for
a federal civil rights claim. Reid v. Griffin, #15-1678, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis
21926 (8th Cir.).
An Illinois state inmate claimed that a prison's
medical staff were deliberately indifferent to the results of 11 blood tests it
administered over a period of five years, during which he progressed from
pre-diabetic to diabetic, even failing to tell him, until the last test, that
his blood glucose levels were dangerously high. A federal appeals court held
that the allegations, if true, did constitute deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. The two-year statute of limitations would have tolled between
the time he discovered that he was diabetic and when he filed suit, since he
was then engaged in exhausting available administrative remedies as required by
the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Nally v. Ghosh, #14-3426, 799 F.3d 756 (7th
Cir. 2015).
An insurer had no duty under a Commercial Umbrella
Liability policy to defend or indemnify a private corporation operating a
prison against claims that an inmate's death was caused by the failure to
provide needed medications, as this fell under a professional liability
exclusion in the policy. It did, however, have a duty to defend and indemnify
the defendant on this claim under a Commercial General Liability policy, and
was not required to do so under a Commercial General Liability policy because
of an exclusion for providing medical services. LCS Corrections Services, Inc.
v. Lexington Ins., #14-40494, 800 F.3d 664 (5th Cir. 2015).
A female prisoner who was pregnant when she
arrived at a county jail claimed that the jail employees were deliberately indifferent
in failing to take a proper medical history, failing to respond to several
requests for medical assistance, and failing to react quickly enough when she
went into labor. As a result, she further claimed, her child suffered serious
birth defects. She was taken to a hospital where she gave birth and then
returned to the jail where she was transferred to another facility after four
days. The trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit for failure to exhaust
available administrative remedies at the jail. Even had she been informed upon
her return to the jail from the hospital that he had only four days to file a
grievance, that time period would have been an unreasonable deadline to impose
on a woman right after she gave birth to a severely impaired child. White v.
Bukowski, #14-3185, 800 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2015).
A pretrial detainee who saw medical staff members
26 times during 18 months of detention failed to show deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs or that he was deprived of essential medical care
despite his allegations that he did not receive the medications that he had
been prescribed before confinement, as the medications he brought with him were
confiscated. He did receive the medications prescribed for him by a physician's
assistant at the detention center, including an opioid pain medication similar
to Vicodin. A two-day delay in the distribution of his pain medication may have
been negligent, but did not constitute deliberate indifference. Burton v.
Downey, #14-3591, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17616 (7th Cir.).
A county detention center employee saw a newly
arrived prisoner put something in his mouth and swallow, and conveyed her
observation to deputies who had started the booking procedure. The prisoner was
sweating profusely, and appeared to be under the influence of something. While
being questioned, he had trouble standing and his demeanor deteriorated. He
stated that he had high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis, gout,
osteoporosis, and an MRSA infection. He denied alcohol or drug addiction and
listed several prescription medications. A licensed practical nurse examined
him and instructed the deputies to admit him to the facility despite his
condition. While he was placed on suicide watch, there was no evidence that he
was evaluated for suicidal ideation, that he received blood pressure
medication, or that facility nurses questioned why his blood pressure dropped
even in the absence of medication. Three days after arriving, he died from MRSA
complications. A federal appeals court reinstated a claim for inadequate
medical care, finding that the variety of medical conditions found that
required treatment and care easily met the objective component of the
deliberate indifference standard. The court also found that a reasonable jury
could conclude that the medical contractor's failure to provide adequate
training and supervision to the nurses could constitute deliberate indifference
to the risk of the potential unconstitutional behavior by licensed practical
nurses who lacked the essential knowledge and preparation to respond to
prisoners' recurring medical needs in a jail setting. Shadrick v. Hopkins
Cnty., #14-5603, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 19386, 2015 Fed. App. 272P (6th Cir.).
A prisoner who claimed that a prison doctor was
negligent in treating his hepatitis was not entitled to summary judgment when
he did not even attempt to establish the amount of damages that he claimed he
was entitled to. Establishing damages was an essential element of his state law
claim. The court committed no error in failing to have the trial proceedings
recorded by a court reporter when it informed the plaintiff that one was not
then available. The plaintiff also failed to show that the trial judge
exhibited bias or prejudice towards him. Jameson v. Desta, #D066793, 241 Cal.
App. 4th 491, 2015 Cal. App. Lexis 919.
A prisoner failed to show that prison officials
were aware of a substantial risk of harm to him in the time leading up to his
injuries in a prison riot to impose liability. But he did adequately show a
basis for moving forward on an Eighth Amendment claim relating to his alleged
conditions of confinement in the hospital for his injuries for a three day
period. A deputy warden was not entitled to qualified immunity, as it was clearly
established that forcing a prisoner to soil himself over several days while
chained in a hospital bed could create an "obvious health risk," and
constituted "an affront to human dignity." Under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e), however, the plaintiff could
not recover compensatory or punitive damages in the absence of a claim of
physical injury resulting from the hospital stay, but could seek nominal
damages for an Eighth Amendment violation. Brooks
v. Warden, #13-14437, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 15696 (11th Cir.).
A doctor at a prison infirmary prescribed
Vicodin, crutches, and a week of "meals lay-in" after a prisoner felt
a "pop" and extreme pain in his left ankle while climbing stairs. The
medical director noted in the prisoner's medical file that he had suffered an
"Achilles tendon rupture" and directed that he "urgently"
be scheduled for an MRI and an examination by an orthopedist. Three
appointments were cancelled, however, as a result of prison lockdowns, and
eight weeks passed before the prisoner received an orthopedic boot. Over a year
later, the prisoner claimed that he still suffered serious pain, soreness, and
stiffness in his ankle, and that the medical director was deliberately
indifferent by failing to immediately after the injury immobilize the ankle
with a cast or orthopedic boot. He also claimed that a doctor he saw later was
deliberately indifferent by failing to order physical therapy for him. A
federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants. The trial
court had found that waiting before immobilizing the ankle was not deliberate
indifference, since several doctors held different opinions about the
appropriate treatment and that a jury could not reasonably find the rejection
of a recommendation for physical therapy to constitute deliberate indifference,
since it was based on medical judgment. The appeals court agreed that a jury
could not reasonably find the treatment of the ankle injury to be a
constitutional violation. Petties v. Carter, #14-2674, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis
13281 (7th Cir.).
An inmate suffered from gastroesophageal reflux
disease (GERD), which can cause severe heartburn. When he arrived at the
prison, he stated that he took prescription medication for the condition. He
asked a nurse to get his prescription renewed, but an appointment to see the
doctor the next day for that purpose was cancelled because of a prison
lockdown. He filed an emergency grievance, but the warden decided that it was
not an emergency, so that he could not see the doctor until the lockdown ended.
He complained about his condition for two months to no avail until he saw a
doctor, and once pressed an emergency button upon vomiting stomach acid. A
responding guard allegedly told him “you are not bleeding, you are not dead… it
can’t be an emergency.” Ultimately, a doctor renewed his prescription. A
federal appeals court reversed a grant of summary judgment to the defendants on
the prisoner's deliberate indifference lawsuit, finding that the trial judge
had engaged in "medical speculation" rather than evidence in
concluding that there was no deliberate indifference. Miller v. Campanella,
#14-1990, 794 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 2015).
An Illinois prisoner who completed his rape
sentence continued to be confined civilly as a sexually violent offender. He
suffers from a number of medical conditions—carpal-tunnel syndrome, pain in his
hips and back lingering from past injuries, flat feet, and ligament damage in
one foot—that, he says, prevent him from climbing to the top bunk in his cell.
During a previous incarceration, he had a low-bunk permit but a doctor at his
present facility refused his request to authorize a similar permit, which he
claimed forced him to sleep on the floor of his cell. He sued the doctor for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and the jury returned a
verdict for the defendant. On appeal, the court rejected an argument that the
trial judge should have declared a mistrial when the doctor violated a pretrial
order by mentioning to the jury that the plaintiff had been incarcerated for 26
years, noting that the jury could already infer from the plaintiff's testimony
and his medical issues going back at least 13 years that he had been in prison
a long time. Collins v. Lochard, #14-1915, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 1184 (7th
Cir.).
Upholding a judgment for prison medical staff in
a lawsuit the plaintiff brought concerning their cutting off of his methadone
treatment while incarcerated, a federal appeals court held that it wss an error
to instruct the jurors in a prison medical care case to defer to the adoption
and implementation of security-based prison policies absent a plausible
connection between the prison's narcotics policy and the challenged decision to
cut off the treatment. The error was harmless, however, as the policy did not
categorically prevent the plaintiff from receiving methadone. Chess v. Dovey,
#12-16516, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 10753 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner serving
a 120-day sentence for marijuana was moved to a padded cell in a manic state
after he beat on the walls of his cell. That night, the staff merely viewed him
through a monitor camera, despite a supposed obligation to conduct in-person
checks for an affirmative response four times an hour. He fell and hit his head
first against a wall and then on a door jamb. Staff members allegedly did not
open the cell door despite him complaining that he had injured his head and
required medical attention. In the morning, attempts to wake him were
unavailing, and he died in a hospital three days later, as a result of a
subdural hematoma caused by his falls. A sergeant and a lieutenant were denied
qualified immunity on claims for deliberate indifference as a jury could infer
that they were aware of a substantial risk of serious harm but failed to
respond appropriately. A third defendant employee, a case manager, was entitled
to qualified immunity as her actions constituted, at most, negligence, rather
than deliberate indifference. Letterman v. Farnsworth, #14-1571, 789 F.3d 856
(8th Cir. 2015).
An inmate injured his hand during a prison
basketball game. While a nurse quickly wrapped his hand, she was not able to
either give him medicine or do stitches. A day later, the inmate saw a doctor
who also did not stitch his wound, but prescribed antibiotics and recommended a
specialist. Approval for seeing a specialist took a number of days, during
which the wound remained open and bleeding. The prisoner filed a grievance,
which was rejected, arguing that the delay was retaliatory for him having filed
a previous grievance over the withholding of prescription medication. He was
then taken to a clinic where he saw a physician's assistant, who stated that he
could not suture the wound because of its age. The inmate claimed that prison
officials did not follow care instructions after that and did not return him to
the clinic for follow-up care. Seven months later, he still had continuing
pain, and then had surgery. He claims that due to an overall ten-month delay in
getting required treatment, he suffered irreparable damage. The trial court
dismissed his lawsuit after screening it, and a federal appeals court reversed,
finding that the alleged facts stated both valid Eighth Amendment and First
Amendment retaliation claims. Perez v. Fenoglio, #12-3084, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis
11672 (7th Cir.).
Death row inmates at a new prison that has no air
conditioning claimed that the heat they were exposed to during the summer
violated their Eighth Amendment rights because of their pre-existing medical
conditions and disabilities, including hypertension, obesity, diabetes,
depression, and high cholesterol. They also claimed that this constituted
disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42
U.S.C. 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. 794. A federal appeals
court upheld a trial court finding of deliberate indifference constituting an
Eighth Amendment violation, as the heat put the plaintiffs at substantial risk
of serious harm, but found that an injunction issued requiring the installation
of air conditioning throughout death row was overbroad under prior precedent
and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. 3626, so that further
proceedings were required. The appeals court upheld the rejection of the
disability discrimination claims, however, as the prisoners failed to present
evidence to prove that they were disabled. Ball v. LeBlanc, #14-30067, 2015
U.S. App. Lexis 11769 (5th Cir.).
An inmate claimed that his free exercise of
religion rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. were violated
because he was prohibited from consuming wine during communion, he was required
to work on the Sabbath, and he was housed with non-Christian and anti-Christian
cellmates, including an active Satanist. He further asserted a claim for
deliberate indifference to his medical needs. A federal appeals court found
that the plaintiff successfully alleged facts sufficient to go forward on his
Sabbath and cell assignment claims, and the fact that he received some medical
treatment for some of his various symptoms did not defeat his deliberate
indifference claim when he alleged that some symptoms were not treated at all.
The appeals court reversed the summary dismissal of the wine communion claim,
as the plaintiff did not have the opportunity to submit a brief on whether the
wine ban substantially burdened the exercise of his religion and the record did
not show that the total ban on wine consumption during communion was the least
restrictive means of furthering the prison's asserted security interest.
Jehovah v. Clarke, #13-7529, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 11818 (4th Cir.).
A prisoner suffered symptoms of acute
appendicitis, and was sent to a hospital emergency room the following day based
on the recommendation of the prison doctor. The officer who accompanied the
prisoner initially refused to remove his restraints, allegedly causing a 45
minute delay in treatment. The prisoner allegedly suffered nerve damage to his
leg during the surgery, and the prison doctor allegedly subsequently decline to
prescribe Neurontin for pain from the nerve damage, a medication that other
doctors indicated was necessary. A federal appeals court found that the
defendants (the prison doctor and correctional officer) had waived possible
qualified immunity defense by failing to assert them in an answer to the
complaint. Allowing them to assert that defense at this point in the
proceeding, after discovery issues had been litigated for a number of years
would unduly prejudice the plaintiff. Henricks v. Gonzalez, #13-4468, 2015 U.S.
App. Lexis 5646, 2015 Fed. App. 0065P (6th Cir.).
A prisoner who was allegedly injured during a
violent scuffle with correctional officers sued two prison staff nurses for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical problems. The nurses were
improperly granted summary judgment, as the prisoner claimed that he told them
that he was in pain and that his jaw was broken. If that were true, it would be
obvious even to a lay person that they should have at least examined his jaw.
There were disputed factual issues as to whether he had, at the time, been
barely able to speak or open his mouth. Perry v. Roy, #14-1466, 2015 U.S. App.
Lexis 5403 (1st Cir.).
A prisoner reported symptoms of constipation and
gas and received treatment for those problems for about two weeks, after which
he suffered a bowel obstruction and perforation, requiring emergency surgery to
repair his bowel and install a colostomy bag. Rejecting a federal civil rights
claim for inadequate medical care, a federal appeals court agreed that the
prisoner had shown that the medical staff had failed to properly diagnose his
bowel obstruction and that the failure to treat it led to the bowel perforation,
but he failed to show that they acted with deliberate indifference to a known
serious medical problem. Allard v. Baldwin, #14-1087, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 3503
(8th Cir.).
Corizon Health, a private medical firm which
services more than 345,000 inmates in 27 states, along with a California
county, reached a settlement in a lawsuit based on the death of a man detained
in the county jail for failing to appear in court on a warrant for drunken
driving after being arrested for jaywalking. The decedent's family claimed that
the firm's employees failed to properly diagnose the detainee, who was
suffering from alcohol withdrawal (delirium tremens with hallucinations) and
had allegedly been beaten by 10 deputies at the jail, as well as shocked with a
Taser in the dart mode, first for two cycles or ten seconds, and then for at
least 27 more seconds in five separate sessions. The lawsuit further claims
that the detainee should have been hospitalized for the alcohol withdrawal. The
defendants agreed to pay $8.3 million to the family. The private medical firm
also agreed to stop using licensed vocational nurses to perform work intended
for registered nurses, a practice that allegedly had saved the company 35% in
labor costs. An unsupervised licensed vocational nurse, instead of an RN, did
the medical screening of the decedent when he was placed in custody at the
jail. The county sheriff stated that the decedent had, before his death,
attacked jail officers, after acting erratically, making a mess of his cell, breaking
food trays, screaming, and blocking a toilet. The county previously entered
into a separate $1 million settlement with one of the deceased detainee's minor
children. Harrison v. Alameda County and Corizon Health Care, Inc.,
#3:11-cv-02868, U.S. Dist. Ct., (N.D. Cal. February 27, 2015). Prior decisions
in the case are M.H. v. County of Alameda, #11-cv-02868, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis
6412 (N.D. Cal.), and M.H. v. County of Alameda, #11-cv-02868, 2013 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 55902 (N.D. Cal.).
An inmate stated a plausible claim of deliberate
indifference against a doctor when he alleged that the doctor had failed to
enter the orders needed to provide him with the promised medical care including
prescribed tests and treatment for a serious heart condition. It could fairly
be inferred, since that doctor had prescribed those tests and treatments, that
he subjectively believed that they were necessary and therefore must have known
that failure to follow through and provide them could pose an excessive risk to
the inmate's health. Claims against a second doctor boiled down to a mere
disagreement over the proper medical care to provide. Jackson v. Lightsey,
#13-7291, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 23830 (4th Cir.).
A $3 million settlement has been reached in a
lawsuit filed by the family of a mentally ill inmate who died in a Colorado
prison while officers and nurses allegedly laughed and joked while watching him
on camera shaking from seizures that turned out to be fatal. He suffered from
bipolar schizoaffective disorder. The cause of death was severe hyponatremia
(low sodium-blood levels), which is treatable if medical assistance is quickly
provided. When the prisoner was found lying face down on the floor, officers
believed that he was intentionally refusing to respond, and they dragged him
out, took off his clothes, chained him to a chair, and placed a mask over his
head. They watched the seizures, apparently thinking that he was faking. He
ultimately died lying on the concrete floor in his underwear. Three prison employees
were fired and five others disciplined after the death. Lopez v. Wasko,
#1:14-cv-01705, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D. Colo. Dec. 11, 2014). Click here to see the
complaint. Click here to see an edited video of the death. [Age-restricted, may
be disturbing, requires free YouTube registration and sign-in].
An Illinois prisoner slipped on some wet stairs
and injured his back. He had previously used those steps while showering and
had, one month before, alerted the warden to the fact that the stairway could
be "treacherous" as a result of the water tracked onto the stairs
from nearby showers. He sued the warden for alleged deliberate indifference to
the hazard and a private company and one of its doctors, under contract to
provide medical care at the facility, for alleged inadequate care for his back
injury, neglecting to investigate his ongoing, significant pain. A federal
appeals court found that the stairway hazard was insufficiently dangerous to
support an Eighth Amendment claim. The medial deliberate indifference claim was
also rejected, as a reasonable finder of fact could not, from the evidence
submitted, find anything more than a mere disagreement about the appropriate
course of treatment for the back injury. Pyles v. Fahim, #14-1752, 771 F.3d 403
(7th Cir. 2014).
UPDATE: An anatomically male prisoner in
their mid-sixties suffering from gender identity disorder and self-identifying
as a female sued the Massachusetts Department of Corrections for not providing
her with sex reassignment surgery. It was providing her with hormonal and other
medical treatments. A prior federal appeals court panel decision held that the
plaintiff was entitled to taxpayer-funded sex change operation, and that
refusing to provide the procedure would violate the Eighth Amendment. The
request for sex reassignment surgery, the panel stated, was based on a serious
medical need, and the defendant correctional department refused to meet that
need for reasons amounting to a pretext that were not supported by any
legitimate penological interests. Kosilek v. Spencer, #12-2194, 2014 U.S. App.
Lexis 951 (1st Cir.). The full federal appeals court, ruling en banc, reversed,
finding that, in light of the community standard of medical care, the adequacy
of the already provided treatment, and various concerns related to safety and
prison security at the medium-security facility where the prisoner was
incarcerated, the care currently provided did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Kosilek v. Spencer, #12-2194, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 23673 (1st Cir. en banc).
A man claimed that he had been denied needed
medical care for a pre-incarceration abdominal bullet wound during his nine
months as a pretrial detainee in a county jail. The trial court dismissed the
lawsuit for failure to properly exhaust available administrative remedies as
there was no record of his having filed a grievance. He testified that he had
never received or been allowed access to a copy of the jail's grievance
procedure, while acknowledging that he knew of the existence of the procedure
from other prisoners. He also stated that he had asked a guard for a grievance
form, but never received one. There was testimony from another prisoner who
overheard the plaintiff ask for a grievance form. There was also evidence that
the plaintiff met with the warden, who promised to "take care" of the
problem and speak to the medical staff, but allegedly did not suggest filing a
grievance. The federal appeals court reinstated the lawsuit. When a jail
official invites noncompliance with a grievance procedure, the detainee is not
required to follow the procedure. Swisher v. Porter Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't.,
#13-3602, 769 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2014).
In a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that
correctional officers used excessive force in restraining him, a federal
appeals court reversed a grant of summary judgment on claims against one
officer, as he had exhausted available administrative remedies against that
defendant. The law did not require the jury instruction given that it was
established that he had resisted the officers (because he was found guilty of
resisting in a disciplinary hearing), and the plaintiff was prejudiced on his
claims that were tried by the instruction given, so the judgment based on a
jury verdict for the remaining defendants was vacated. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,
#11-17911, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 21809 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he experienced
excruciating pain from large and protruding keloids (scar tissue growths) on
his hips, chest, and legs. He further claimed that he tested positive for a
stomach infection from the bacterium helicobacter pylori, and that a prison's
medical director ignored both his conditions, acting with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. The trial court ruled that the claim
concerning the keloids could continue while dismissing the infection claim in
light of the fact that blood tests that the plaintiff attached to his complaint
revealed that he actually tested negative for the infection. The trial court
also denied a motion that the medical director be immediately ordered to refer
the plaintiff to a "suitable doctor." Upholding this result, a
federal appeals court found that the record did not show that an immediate
referral was warranted. The limited evidence in the case so far did not show
that the prisoner would experience any irreparable harm without the issuance of
a preliminary injunction, and also did not establish that his deliberate
indifference claim against the defendant had a reasonable likelihood of
success. Wheeler v. Talbot, #13-3294, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 20090 (7th Cir.).
A man claimed that he was beaten by police officers and
sustained a fractured collarbone, a SLAP-type labral tear, and facial injuries
leaving permanent scarring and requiring two nose surgeries. He also became
legally deaf in one ear and has reduced hearing in the other. A federal appeals
court reversed the dismissal of a deliberate indifference denial of medical
care claim against the doctor at a hospital emergency room, finding that if the
complaint were amended to allege two things claimed in the plaintiff's
opposition to the doctor's motion to dismiss, it would show a sufficiently
culpable state of mind for a constitutional violation. Those two things were
that the officers falsely told the female doctor that one of the officers he
allegedly attacked was a woman, and that he should therefore be "ignored
and left alone." Nielsen v. Rabin, #12-4313, 746 F.3d 58 (2nd Cir. 2014).
A hospital sued federal agencies and officials,
asking the court to issue a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. 4006(b)(1),
imposing the current Medicare rate as full compensation for medical services a
hospital renders to a federal detainee, was unconstitutional as applied.
Rejecting the argument, a federal appeals court ruled that the hospital had
voluntarily opted into the Medicare program, that as a condition of
participation it was required to provide emergency services to federal
detainees, and that it was therefore barred from challenging the compensation
provided as an "unconstitutional taking" under the Fifth Amendment.
Baker County Medical Services v. U.S. Attorney General, #13-13917, 763 F.3d
1274 (11th Cir. 2014).
Massachusetts state prisoner suffering from HIV
challenged a change in medication practices. While previously, they had been
provided with a monthly or bimonthly supply of their prescribed HIV
medications, the state Department of Corrections decided to only dispense such
medication in single doses. The prisoners claimed that this violated their
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as constituting disability
discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Upholding
summary judgment for the Department, the federal appeals court ruled that the
change did not violate these constitutional or statutory rights. Nunes v. Mass.
Depart. of Corrections, #13-2346, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17647 (1st Cir.).
A pretrial detainee was in jail waiting for a probable
cause determination. He was rapidly tapered off of psychotropic medication by
the jail's medical staff, and complained of seizure-like symptoms, but was
placed in an isolated cell for seven hours, after which he was found dead. A
lawsuit was filed against the county and a jail nurse. During summary judgment
proceedings in the case, an appeal, and post-remand pretrial preparations, both
sides used a deliberate indifference legal standard, but six weeks before
trial, the plaintiff's counsel argued for the first time that the correct legal
standard for the jury instructions was objective reasonableness rather than
deliberate indifference. The trial court abused its discretion in granting the
nurse's motion to bar the plaintiff arguing this legal standard and in trying
the case under the deliberate indifference standard. While the plaintiff's
long, unexplained delay in asserting the correct standard was
"puzzling," there was not a sufficient explanation in the trial
court's ruling as to how the defendant nurse would suffer prejudice as a result
of the delay. The judgment in favor of the county was upheld, however, as the
shift in the legal standard would not have any impact on the ruling as to it
liability. King v. Kramer, #13-2379, 763 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2014).
A prisoner who ultimately was diagnosed with
kidney stones defeated qualified immunity defenses by a prison nurse who
allegedly acted with deliberate indifference to his several hours of severe
abdominal pain by failing to provide him then with any kind of medical
treatment or evaluation. His pain was a sufficiently serious medical need to
meet the objective part of the deliberate indifference test. A number of other
defendants who were not medical professionals, however, were entitled to
qualified immunity. Al-Turki v. Robinson, #13-1107, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 15407
(10th Cir.).
A state law wrongful death claim against both
government officials and private medical contractors rising out of the death of
a pretrial detainee from diabetic ketoacidosis was properly dismissed for
failure to comply with affidavit and report requirements of a state statute.
But the failure to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to attempt to
comply with those requirements was an abuse of discretion, particularly when
the trial court did not make any factual determinations to base that refusal on.
Claims against the sheriff were properly dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to
present any evidence that the sheriff had any knowledge about a problem with
diabetic detainees refusing to participation in their medical treatment,
causing serious adverse effects. Hahn v. Walsh, #13-1766, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis
15401 (7th Cir.).
A domestic violence probation violator with a
lengthy history of substance abuse and mental health problems killed himself
while awaiting transportation to another facility. A federal appeals court
ruled that prison administrators in the case were not entitled to qualified
immunity on a claim that inadequate provision of medical care by a private
third party contractor cause the prisoner's suicide. Barkes v. First Corr. Med.
Inc., 12-3074 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17261 (3rd Cir.).
A prisoner submitted a number of requests for
healthcare for his bloodshot left eye, but was allegedly released on parole
without receiving treatment. Upon release, he underwent laser surgery for
glaucoma in his right eye, but continued to have problems with his left eye.
When he was reincarcerated, he made several more attempts to receive treatment,
and finally underwent surgery to remove part of his left eye's ciliary body
three years later. In his lawsuit claiming deliberate indifference to his
glaucoma condition, the trial court denied repeated requests for an appointed
lawyer, finding that his claims were not meritorious or overly complex. A
federal appeals court found that this denial of appointed counsel was an abuse
of discretion and that this abuse impacted on the prisoner's ability to develop
and litigate his claim. DeWitt v. Corizon, Inc., #13-2930, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis
14236 (7th Cir.).
The widow of a detainee at a county jail claimed
that officers used excessive force while extracting him from his cell, which
resulted in his asphyxiation and death, and that some defendants acted with
deliberate indifference to his medical needs during the incident. The appeals
court, overturning summary judgment for the defendants, found that there were
genuine issues of material fact from which a jury could conclude that excessive
force was used. Further proceedings were needed to consider whether individual
defendants should face trial on either direct liability for use of force or on
a bystander liability theory. The appeals court upheld summary judgment for the
individual defendants on the claim concerning deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs and for the municipality on an inadequate training claim.
Kitchen v. Dallas County Texas, #13-10545 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 13699 (5h Cir.).
A pre-trial detainee failed to show that a
prison doctor acted with deliberate indifference to a surgical thread that was
protruding from a wound on his abdomen from bowel obstruction surgery he had
almost a year before, prior to his incarceration. The appeals court also upheld
a ruling that a prison nurse's alleged act of hitting the plaintiff's nose was
a de minimus (minimal) use of force that was not a violation of his due process
rights. Jackson v. Buckman, #13-1165, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 12127 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner broke his hand in a fight. He claimed
that he filed an emergency grievance over an alleged inadequate medical
treatment for his injury, but never received any response. He then was
transferred to another facility, where he allegedly told an officer that he had
been authorized, at the first facility, to be assigned to a bottom bunk, but
was told to merely work things out with his cellmate. He claimed to have filed
a grievance over this too, but prison officials said that he had not. His
lawsuit was dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies
as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. A federal appeals court upheld
the dismissal of the claim against the receiving officer at the second
facility, as the grievance allegedly filed had not mentioned that officer's
name nor contained information from which he could be identified. If the
defendants wanted to contest whether the emergency grievance at the first
facility was filed, an evidentiary hearing would be required. Roberts v. Neal,
#13-1335, 745 F.3d 232 (7th Cir. 2014).
A prisoner claimed that he was denied adequate
medical treatment and that, further, he was punished for seeking it. The trial
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the lawsuit after the prisoner
engaged in slurs, insults, and abusive attacks on the magistrate judge to whom
the case was referred. The trial court properly found that the plaintiff was
acting in bad faith and that no lesser sanction would be sufficient. Koehl v.
Bernstein, #12-3855, 740 F.3d 860 (2d Cir. 2014).
A prisoner claimed that prison officials and
medical personnel acted with deliberate indifference to his need for medical
treatment for his epilepsy. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice because he
did not pay the initial partial filing fee, which was $8.40, as required by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. He claimed to have had no money or income when
the fee was due, and also asserted that any money received in his account was
automatically deducted by the prison to pay for the costs of printing copies of
his complaint. A federal appeals court found that the trial court had not
abused its discretion by setting the initial filing fee at $8.40, even though
there was only two cents in the prisoner's account at the time, but the lawsuit
was improperly dismissed without a determination of whether the plaintiff was
at fault for not paying. Thomas v. Butts, #12-2902, 745 F.3d 309 (7th Cir.
2014).
A private company served as an independent
contractor providing healthcare service to those detained in a county jail.
After a pretrial detainee there died from self-inflicted injuries, a federal
civil rights lawsuit claimed that three jail employees were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. A federal appeals court found that it
lacked jurisdiction to review a denial of qualified immunity to the defendants
when the basis for the denial was based on the presence of disputed issues of
material fact. Cady v. Cumberland County Jail, #13-2040, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis
10416 (1st Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that his Eighth Amendment
rights were violated when a sergeant pepper-sprayed him because he refused to
return to his cell after showering. He further claimed that another officer
then turned off the water, which prevented him from rinsing off the pepper
spray for ten to fifteen minutes. A federal appeals court upheld summary
judgment for the defendant on the excessive force claim, noting that the
prisoner had been warned that he would be pepper sprayed if he did not comply
with orders, and that he either threw an object at or spit at the sergeant
three times, with a small quantity of pepper spray used after each act of
defiance. There was no indication of a malicious intent to harm or that the
force used was excessive. The other officer was entitled to qualified immunity
on the delayed decontamination claim, as the prisoner failed to establish that
he acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Burns v.
Eaton, #13-1730, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 9596 (8th Cir.).
A man arrested on a warrant for failing to appear in court on a drug charge
died in custody during booking. A number of officers restrained him when he
allegedly acted in an insubordinate manner, pinning him face-down to the ground
while one put him in a carotid restraint and another used a Taser on him in the
stun mode on his leg for eight seconds after he was handcuffed. The appeals
court upheld the trial court's denial of the defendants' motion for summary
judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on both excessive force and denial
of medical care claims. There was evidence that, viewed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, showed that the officers used various types of
force on the arrestee while he was handcuffed, not resisting, and on his
stomach. Estate of Booker v. Gomez, #12-1496, 745 F.3d 405 (10th Cir. 2014).
Prisons in California have operated under a
receivership since 2006 to comply with consent decrees concerning prison health
care. The trial court ordered the state to disclose its expert witnesses and
their reports 120 days before moving to terminate the decrees under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. The state appealed the order, and the appeal was denied.
The trial court's order was a sensible scheduling order designed to allow the
plaintiffs and the court adequate notice of the evidence the state would rely
on in support of its motion.
Plata v. Brown,
#13-15466, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 9801 (9th Cir.).
A detainee at a county jail died as a
result of a perforated duodenal ulcer, succumbing to sepsis. He had allegedly
complained about stomach pain prior to his death, displayed signs of agitation,
and acted in a bizarre manner indicating mental health problems. His estate
claimed that medical staff members were deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs, and could have saved his life if they had given him prompt medical
attention in the 36 hours before his death. Expert witnesses stated that he
received substandard care. Summary judgment for the defendants was upheld as it
could not be concluded that the medical staff deliberately failed to provide
appropriate treatment after becoming aware of his serious medical needs. They
had mistakenly interpreted his symptoms as indicating a different medical
condition, for which they provided appropriate care. Claims against the private
corporation providing medical care for inadequate training and supervision were
properly rejected, and the trial court appropriately decided not to exercise
jurisdiction over state law claims. Rouster v. Saginaw Cnty., #13-1673, 2014
U.S. App. Lexis 6491, 2014 Fed App. 0069P (6th Cir.).
A jail detainee claimed that he became partially
blind because of a delay in treatment for his high blood pressure. A doctor and
a nurse were entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that they failed to
carry out a medical screening of the plaintiff when he was booked into the
jail, as there was no clearly established right to a general medical screening
upon admission to a detention center. The county was also entitled to summary
judgment on the medical screening claim when he did not exhibit obvious signs
of a serious medical condition. The expert witness testimony established, at
most, negligent medical malpractice in failing to prescribe medication after
several high blood pressure readings, but that was insufficient for a
constitutional claim. Fourte v. Faulkner County, Arkansas, #13-2241, 2014
U.S. App. Lexis 5451 (8th Cir.).
An Illinois prisoner ruptured the pectoralis
tendon in his left shoulder while lifting weights. He did receive some medical
attention, but not the prompt surgery needed to provide the most effective
recovery. He developed a serious and permanent impairment, since too much time
passed for the surgery to do any good. A federal appeals court upheld summary
judgment for the defendants. His difficulties were not the result of any one
person's deliberate indifference, but rather of a medical care system that
"diffused" responsibility for his care so that no single person was
responsible for seeing that he received prompt attention, and none could be
held liable for deliberate indifference. State law medical malpractice claims
against a number of private defendants were also rejected. Shields v. IL Dept
of Corrs., #13-1143, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4833 (7th Cir.).
A
prisoner at a federal facility contracted Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus
aureus, (MRSA), a staph infection resistant to certain antibiotics, there and
was hospitalized for over 40 days. He suffered permanent damage to his heart
and lungs. He sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, asserting that the
prison's negligence caused his injuries. After a bench trial, the court held
that he had not proven that he had contracted the infection from contact with a
fellow employee in the prison laundry or from sloppy procedures in handling
infected prison laundry. The federal appeals court upheld this ruling as to
those two theories or liability, but found that the trial court should have
considered a broader theory contained in the plaintiff's complaint--that the
prison was negligent in failing to adhere to its MRSA-containment policies.
Buechel v. United States, #13-2278, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4260 (7th Cir.).
While the trial court held that the plaintiff
prisoner had voluntarily, and with informed consent, signed a form refusing to
have a consultation with a retinal specialist, the appeals court reversed
summary judgment for the defendants. It ruled that there were genuine issues of
material fact as to the validity as well as the scope of the refusal form.
Further proceedings were ordered as to whether any of the individual defendants
acted with deliberate indifference on failing to provide him with medical
treatment for his retinopathy. Kuhne v. FL Dept. of Corrections, #12-13387,
2014 U.S. App. Lexis 2460, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1013 (11th Cir.).
A prisoner started experiencing blackouts,
weakness and difficulty walking. Despite his written medical requests, he
asserts, he was not properly examined for six months. Before he was eventually
diagnosed with pernicious anemia, the defendants allegedly failed to use
medication to slow the disease. He was paralyzed from the waist down and his
condition continued to deteriorate. He complained that he was denied assignment
to the Transitional Care Unit, and that he was placed in administrative
segregation without a wheelchair or handicap access, forcing him to crawl and
to eat meals on the floor. He was also denied someone to push his wheelchair, a
handicapped-accessible cell, medically prescribed physical therapy,
preventative treatment, examination by an outside specialist, wheelchair
accessories, and exemption from activities requiring exposure to cold. He
claimed that lack of accommodations caused him to miss meals, fall several
times in his cell, be placed on strip-cell status, and be unable to move around
his cell without hitting the toilet or walls.
Individual capacity disability discrimination
claims against two prison officials were dismissed because they could not be
sued in their individual capacities under either the Americans with
Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act. Claims against doctors and a
correctional medical service, as they related to medical treatment, could not
form the basis of disability discrimination claims under either statute. Claims
for injunctive relief, however, could continue, as could damage claims against
the state and the correctional department, as some of the alleged conduct could
have violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Dinkins v. Correctional
Medical Services, #12-2127, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 3454 (8th Cir.).
Under a Texas state statute, inmates who receive
medical care in the prison system are required to pay a $100 annual fee. The
lawsuit filed challenging this did not support an Eighth Amendment claim as
there was no allegation that the plaintiff had been denied medical care or
forced to choose between medical care and other bare necessities. The court
also rejected due process claims based on minor discrepancies between the
notice posted to prisoners and the language of the statute. Taking the required
funds from the plaintiff's inmate account was not unreasonable and was
justified by the goal of controlling the prison budget, so no Fourth Amendment
claim was viable. Morris v. Livingston, #12-50848, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 557
(5th Cir.).
A 64-year-old born male transsexual prisoner was
entitled to taxpayer-funded sex change operation, a federal appeals court has
held, upholding a trial court order. Refusing to provide the procedure would
violate the Eighth Amendment. The request for sex reassignment surgery was
based on a serious medical need, and the defendant correctional department
refused to meet that need for reasons amounting to a pretext that were not
supported by any legitimate penological interests. Kosilek v. Spencer,
#12-2194, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 951 (1st Cir.).
The family of a female arrestee who died while
held in a cell in a police station without needed medical attention for over 24
hours was awarded $1 million in damages by a jury. According to the plaintiffs,
the woman's lawyer and several family members repeatedly let officers know that
she was seriously ill, and she herself informed them of this also. She was
obese, diabetic, and had asthma. The jury found that a police practice of
holding detainees in cells in police stations without medical attention for up
to two days was unconstitutional. Ortiz v. the City of Chicago, #04-C-7423,
U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2013).
An inmate with a medical record of hypertension,
Parkinson's disease, delusions, and bipolar disease failed to show that his
alleged injuries could have been prevented if the director of the medical
department for the state Department of Corrections had implemented a policy of
allowing for the administration of three pill calls a day. Claims against a
prison doctor should not have been rejected as the prisoner was not given a notice
and opportunity to show good cause or excusable neglect for having failed to
achieve timely service on the doctor. Crowley v. Bannister, #12-15804, 2013
U.S. App. Lexis 22087 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner's claim that a nurse practitioner and
correctional counselor were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs by failing to see to it that he receive his hypertension medication for a
three week period. The appeals court criticized the failure by the plaintiff's
lawyer and the trial court to use any medical literature or other scientific
resources to more quickly determine that such a brief failure to take
hypertension medication would not result in serious consequences. Noting that
this "plainly meritless suit was filed … more than four years ago.
…," the court said that "A stronger judicial hand on the tiller could
have saved a good deal of time, effort, and paper."Jackson v. Pollion,
#12-2682, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 21983 (7th Cir.).
After a woman's son died at a county jail from
multiple drug intoxication, she sued two correctional officers for failing to
prevent the death. One officer was entitled to qualified immunity as he did not
have any subjective knowledge of the fact that the prisoner needed medical
attention, and therefore could not have acted with deliberate indifference. A
second officer, however, under the alleged circumstances he confronted, should
have realized that a constitutional violation would occur if he deliberately
ignored the need for medical attention, so he was not entitled to qualified
immunity. Thompson v. King, #12-3450, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 19363 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner's lawsuit seeking injunctive relief
for alleged deliberate indifference to his personal serious medical needs
(specifically treatment for a shoulder injury from prior gunshot wounds and an
old sports knee injury) was not barred by the fact that there was a pending
class action concerning injunctive relief on medical care in California
prisons. The class action sought only systemic reform and a consent decree in
that case required the implementation of certain conditions as well as the
reduction of the statewide prison population, and did not cover claims
concerning individualized medical care. While further proceedings were ordered,
the claim might be moot, in light of the fact that the prisoner had been
transferred to a new facility. Pride v. Correa, #10-56036, 719 F.3d 1130 (9th
Cir. 2013).
A paraplegic prisoner confined to a wheelchair
sued, asserting claims for 14 alleged incidents of excessive force against him,
denial of needed medical treatment, and the confiscation of his wheelchair,
which was then replaced with one that lacked needed leg rests. He claimed that,
with the supplied wheelchair, he was unable to shower or brush his teeth and
sometimes was left lying in his own excrement for day. A federal appeals court
upheld the dismissal of most of these claims for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies by filing and pursuing grievances, as required by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. The trial judge was entitled to make a factual
determination without the participation of a jury that the plaintiff was aware
of the prison's grievance procedure and was able to access it. The appeals
court found, however, that the prisoner did adequately exhaust administrative
remedies as to two specific incidents. While he did not appeal his grievances
concerning those two incidents, no appeal was available because no actual
decision on the grievances concerning those incidents was received. Small v. Whittick,
#11-2378, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 17739 (3rd Cir.).
A prisoner filed a lawsuit against a health care
service and five medical professionals claiming that they were deliberately
indifferent to his chronic serious medical conditions of diabetes and Hepatitis
C, and that this had caused the need for partial amputation of his feet and
visual impairment. He argued that this deliberate indifference was ongoing,
subjecting him to a risk of coma, death, or further amputations. While he had
filed three previous lawsuits dismissed as frivolous, he was not precluded from
proceeding as a pauper on the current lawsuit under the "three
strikes" rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act because his claims of an
ongoing risk of additional harm fell within the "imminent danger"
exception to that rule. Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc. #11-1959, 2013
U.S. App. Lexis 17028, 2013 Fed App. 234P (6th Cir.).
A former detainee sued a county after its jail
allegedly failed to provide him with his prescribed and necessary anti-seizure
medication when he was incarcerated there. A federal appeals court upheld
summary judgment for the county since the plaintiff presented absolutely no
evidence that county policymaking officials would have been informed of the
denial of his medication on the morning in question and made a deliberate
choice to either ignore it or tacitly authorize the denial in the next few
hours. There also was no evidence of a widespread persistent continuing pattern
of unconstitutional misconduct by the county's employees. Johnson, Jr. v.
Both medical professionals and other defendants
were entitled to summeay judgment on a sexually violent civil detainee's claim
that they acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by
requiring that he wear leg irons every time he was transported out of the
facility, when his legs were swollen and possibly cancerous. There was no
medical evidence, other than the detainee's own personal opinion, that there
was a medical need to exempt him from the routine use of metal leg shackles.
The non-medical defendants were reasonable in relying on the medical
professionals' opinion that there was no reason not to use the shackles on the
detainee. The detainee showed that his legs became swollen when he walked four
blocks, but failed to show evidence of any other resulting injury. McGee v.
Adams, #11-2666, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 16039 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that the failure to provide
him with prescription eye drops for his glaucoma violated his Eighth Amendment
rights as well as constituting negligence under state law. He failed to show
that the delays in supplying him with the eye drops was due to deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need, and the trial court did not err in
declining to retain jurisdiction over the state law negligence claim. Byrd v.
Shannon, #11-1744, 709 F.3d 211 (3rd Cir. 2013).
A prison rejected the "incessant"
requests by a prisoner suffering from scoliosis for a back brace, orthopedic
shoes, a medical mattress and a lower bunk. A federal appeals court ound that
there was "overwhelming" evidence that the plaintiff had no medical
need for any of the requested items, with the exception maybe of a lower bunk.
Based on the prisoner's claim that he had suffered injuries while trying to
climb into a higher bunk after he was refused a request to sleep in a health
care unit, the court ordered further proceedings on that claim alone. Withers
v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., #10-3012, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 4002 (7th
Cir.).
A pretrial detainee claimed that his conditions
of confinement at a county jail were unconstitutional, and that the sheriff was
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs for an injury to his leg. The
conditions complained of included poor sanitation and hygiene alongside lack of
heat and bedding, blocked ventilation, overcrowding, and inadequate recreation.
These conditions, he argued, together with a failure to provide detainees with
a way to clean themselves with running water or cleaning supplies, stated a
claim for relief. He said that three doctors told him that his leg infection
was the result of the unsanitary conditions. His claim for medical indifference
was rejected, since he received ongoing observation, medication, and medical
attention, but the federal appeals court ordered further proceedings on his
unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim. Budd v. Motley, #11-3425,
2013 U.S. App. Lexis 6557 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that a persistent pain in his
shoulder came from an injury which an MRI would detect, pointing the way to a
successful treatment. He claimed that the refusal to do an MRI constituted
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. His treating physician,
however, believed that the pain came from arthritis and that an MRI would not
help any in diagnosis and treatment. A federal appeals court upheld a ruling
that there had been no deliberate indifference, since the prisoner had been
frequiently examined, x-rays had been taken, pain killers had been prescribed,
and he had been assigned to a lower bunk to accommodate his condition. There
was no objective deliberate indifference, so the plaintiff's claim that the
doctor had subjective antipathy towards him was irrelevant. Ray v. Wexford
Health Sources, Inc., #12-1774. (7th Cir.).
A lawsuit claimed that a prisoner suffered
serious permanent injuries leading to brain damage because he was improperly
denied prescribed epilepsy medication. A jury awarded him $12 million in
damages, consisting of $11 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in
punitive damages. He had a seizure when he failed to get his medication for
three days despite requesting it, and then suffered a head injury in his cell.
He is currently unable to walk or take care of himself as a result of his
injuries, and suffers from partial blindness. Fox v. Barnes, #1:09-cv-05453 ,
U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Ill., Jan 18, 2013).
The Supreme Court of Hawaii rejected a request
that prison authorities be ordered to approve a prisoner's requests for dental
treatment, a root canal operation, teeth cleaning, repair of a cavity, and
medical treatment for cancer and a concussion. The prisoner failed to show that
the defendants were failing to respond to his requests, and there was evidence
that he was provided with both medical and dental treatment, and advised of his
option to seek outside care for services the state did not cover. Additionally,
the prisoner was offered services for the relief of pain. Tierney v. Sakai,
#12-0000831, 2013 Haw. Lexis 36.
An inmate suffering from
gender identity disorder (GID) claimed that prison officials' refusal to
authorize sex reassignment surgery for her violated the Eighth Amendment,
particularly on the basis of their knowledge of prior attempts at self-mutilation.
The treatment provided, which included hormone therapy, psychological
counseling, and allowing her to live and dress as a woman, she claimed, had not
alleviated her constant mental anguish that caused her attempts to castrate
herself. The federal appeals court overturned a dismissal of the lawsuit for
failure to state a claim, since the claim asserted was plausible on its facts.
The complaint adequately stated a claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. De'Lonta v. Johnson, #11-7482. 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 2005
(4th Cir.).
A trial court dismissed a prisoner's lawsuit for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs as untimely because there
was evidence that he had been aware of the misdiagnosis of his condition more
than two years before suing. A federal appeals court ruled the prisoner's claim
that he wwas physically incapacitated for a time period that prevented him from
filing suit within the two year statute of limitations was at a minimum
plausible, so that the trial court should not have rejected it at any early
stage in the lawsuit. Richards v. Mitcheff, #11-3227, 696 F.3d 635 (7th Cir.
2012).
Does a doctor who treats prisoners have a legal
duty to warn corrections officers that an inmate has a communicable disease?
One female correctional officer assigned to strip search female prisoners
before and after they received visitors claimed that she contracted a
methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection because
approximately twelve of the prisoners were infected. She sued the private
company that provided medical services to the prisoners, claiming that its
staff members knew which prisoners were infected and should have informed her
so that she could take precautions. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that
the defendant was not liable to the officer, finding that the trial court had
properly declined to impose new affirmative duties to a third party on medical
personnel in their professional relationship to prisoners. Seebold v. Prison
Health Services, #9-MAP-2011,.2012 Pa. Lexis 3011.
A doctor had no liability for the death of a
pretrial detainee at the county jail from a massive gastrointestinal hemorrhage
when he had no knowledge of the detainee's medical problems before he died. A
nurse had moved the detainee to medical solitary after he vomited blood, but
believed that his condition could be handled by the use of the standing
medication orders without hospitalizing him. Since there was nothing in the
record to indicate past incidents in which detainees were harmed by improper
nursing assessments or treatment based on the jail's standing orders, there was
no proof of deliberate indifference by the county. Brown v. Bolin, #11-10511,
2012 U.S. App. Lexis 25433 (5th Cir.).
A man arrested and allegedly detained in a county
jail for nine days without formal charges claimed that he was improperly denied
access to Oxycontin for his pain caused by his Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome. That
medication had been prescribed by his regular doctor. Jail medical personnel
substituted other pain medication that was non-narcotic. The detainee failed to
show that this was a substantial violation from accepted professional medical
standards or that jail nurses acted with deliberate indifference in following a
jail doctor's instructions. A due process claim for his detention failed as he
was brought before a court within 72 hours of his arrest, held without bail
pursuant to a court order, and was released when the prosecutor failed to file
formal charges within the time allowed by the court. Holloway v. Delaware
County Sheriff, #12-2592, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 23823 ((7th Cir.).
A jury awarded a prisoner's estate $1.734 million
after he died from allegedly inadequately treated penile cancer. An
intermediate California appeals court reversed that decision, finding that the
state was immune from liability under state law, since the allegations amounted
to medical malpractice rather than failure to summon needed medical assistance.
The prisoner was assessed by a doctor and nurse, diagnosed as having cancer,
and referred for further treatment including a biopsy and medication. Their
failure to provide further treatment, to monitor his progress, or to follow up
on his prognosis, all involved the reasonableness of the medical treatment
provided, for which the state was immune. Castaneda v. Dept. of Corr. &
Rehab., #B229246, 207 Cal. App. 4th 1488, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 641, 2012 Cal. App.
Lexis 839.
A prisoner argued that the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because they failed to
comply with his medical chrono (a collection of informal notes taken by prison
officials documenting medical orders) by not housing him in a ground floor
cell, and by failing to provide him with an interpreter at his medical
appointments. The trial court dismissed his complaint with prejudice. A federal
appeals court vacated that dismissal, finding that the trial court acted
erroneously by declining to consider arguments by the plaintiff which he raised
for the first time in response to objecting to the magistrate's findings and
recommendations. The plaintiff's objections directed the court's attention to
fact explaining that he might have exhausted his administrative remedies, as
well as the facts that he was disabled, had limited English skills, and was
illiterate. Failure to consider these things was an abuse of discretion. Akhtar
v. Mesa, #11-16629, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 22701 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner's lawsuit asserted that he was
suffering excruciating pain because he was not being provided with effective
medical treatment for his hemorrhoids, which had grown to the size of golf
balls. He sought an injunction against the alleged inadequate medical care.
While trial judges assigned to such prisoner cases are supposed to screen them
"as soon as practicable" after they were docketed, to weed out
frivolous or malicious lawsuits and let the rest move forward, in this
instance, the complaint had not been screened, even though ten months had
elapsed. This was too long and federal judges "must not leave litigants to
bear pain indefinitely." Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
#12-1806, 689 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2012).
A prisoner appealed from the dismissal of his
claims against a doctor on a federal civil rights claim. While the prisoner did
not received required notices spelling out what he had to do to oppose her
motion for summary judgment, this was harmless since it was clear that there
were no facts that would allow the inmate to prevail. The doctor, at the time
she treated the prisoner, was working as an independent contractor and not as
an employee of the prison or the hospital. She was not a state actor and could
not be liable for a federal civil rights claim. Emergency medical care is not a
traditionally and exclusively government function. Stratton v. Buck, #10-35656,
2012 U.S. App. Lexis 19660 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that a delay in providing him
with surgery to correct his painful hernia until after it grew to
"grapefruit" size constituted deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A jury returned a verdict
for the defendants. The trial court gave the jury erroneous instructions saying
that they had to independently find that cruel and unusual punishment had
occurred in addition to finding deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need. The plaintiff only needed to show deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need to prove the Eighth Amendment violation needed for liability. The
jury instructions were also confusing in suggesting that damages were an
element of liability. A new trial was required. Cotts v. Osafo, #10-3687, 2012
U.S. App. Lexis 16936 (7th Cir.).
A correctional officer applied a "sleeper
hold" to a pre-trial detainee, restrained in handcuffs and shackles, who
continued to resist. The officer allegedly rendered the detainee unconscious
using the hold and failed to tell a nurse at the jail that he was
"gurgling," and then lying silent and motionless, and needed medical
attention. The officer was convicted of depriving the detainee of his rights
and of obstructing a federal investigation into the detainee's subsequent death
by falsifying documents. The evidence was sufficient to prove that the officer
used force to put the detainee into a position requiring medical attention, and
then acted with deliberate indifference towards his serious medical needs.
United States v. Gray, #11-3143, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 18528, 2012 Fed App.
0297P (6th Cir.).
A federal trial judge ruled that a transsexual
prisoner serving a life sentence without possibility of parole for murdering
his wife (after she expressed anger that he was wearing her clothes) was
entitled to sex reassignment surgery at government expense. His doctors had
indicated that sex reassignment surgery to make him female would be the only
form of treatment adequate to treat his severe gender disorder. While
incarcerated, he has twice attempted to kill himself and once tried to castrate
himself. The judge found that purported security concerns expressed by the
defendant officials were "a pretext to mask the real reason for the
decision to deny him sex reassignment surgery - a fear of controversy,
criticism, ridicule, and scorn." Denial of such surgery would violate the
Eighth Amendment, the judge stated in a lengthy opinion. It is believed to be
the first court decision in the U.S. ordering such surgery for a prisoner.
Kosilek v. Spencer, #00-12455, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 124758 (D. Mass.).
The widow of a pretrial detainee at a county jail
claimed that his death was due to the company with the contract for medical
services there weaning him off alprazolam which he took for anxiety, in favor
of other medication in its standard formulary. A federal appeals court held
that the county might be liable for restricting physician access to him after
he clearly was in distress, having drug withdrawal symptoms, having a seizure,
and having his face turn blue. A site director nurse at the jail might also be
liable for allegedly ignoring his medical needs, and moving him to an isolated
padded cell, where he died. King v. Kramer, #11-2204, 680 F.3d
1013 (7th Cir. 2012).
Three nurses who allegedly received but ignored
medical requests concerning a prisoner from corrections officers and other
inmates could be liable for his death from TB. They allegedly stated that the
request for treatment had to be from the prisoner himself, but did nothing else
until he had to be treated by a doctor on an emergency basis when he was "near
death." Two other nurses, one whose only contact with the prisoner was at
intake, and the other who misread his TB test, could not be held liable, nor
could facility administrators or the county. McCaster v. Clausen, #11-2612, 684
F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2012).
The due process rights of a pretrial detainee
were not denied when he was booked into a jail after business hours on Friday
when it was too late for his request for prescription drugs for his back pain
to be reviewed until Monday. He suffered a seizure shortly thereafter, but the
delay in reviewing his medication request did not violate his constitutional
rights, since the drugs at issue were not "life-sustaining."
Bruederle v. Louisville Metro Government, #11-5637, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 15180,
2012 Fed. App. 225P (6th Cir.).
A prisoner suing pro se, claiming inadequate
medical care, was entitled to be given a written notice as to what was required
to defeat motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. Those notices
must be served on him at the same time as the motions, in order to allow him
"fair, timely and adequate notice" of what he is required to do to
respond to those motions to preserve his claims. Notices served on him before
such motions are filed do not sufficiently serve that purpose. Woods v.
Carey, #09–15548, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.).
A surgeon's misdiagnosis that a prisoner had
"no definite hernia" was merely negligence, and insufficient to
support a constitutional claim. The prisoner stated a valid claim for
deliberate indifference, however, against another doctor who confirmed that the
prisoner had a hernia requiring surgery, but failed to properly request a
referral for the surgery in a timely fashion and, without explanation, canceled
a second referral request, resulting in a seven-month delay in treatment.
Wilhelm v. Rotman, #11-16335, 680 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012).
When a prisoner was examined by a prison doctor
and a nurse, complaining of a swollen eye and a headache, they recommended,
respectively, a warm compress and the taking of Tylenol. After his release, the
prisoner discovered that the swollen eye was because of a rare form of bone
cancer. The misdiagnosis by the medical personnel could not support a federal
civil rights claim. The doctor only had one brief contact with the prisoner,
and there nurse did refer him to an optometrist. "(N)either negligent
medical care, nor the delay in providing medical care, can rise to the level of
a constitutional violation absent specific allegations of sufficiently harmful acts
or omissions reflecting deliberate indifference." Reilly v. Vadlamudi,
#11-1252, 680 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2012).
A prisoner not involved in a fight between two other
inmates claimed he struck in the arm by a shotgun pellet fired by a guard was a
nearby catwalk. He allegedly had to wait four days for medical attention,
suffering significant pain in the interim. Right after the incident, a medical
aide allegedly assured him that she would go and get medication and medical
supplies for him, but did not return with it. He asserted a valid claim for
excessive use of force, as there was sufficient evidence to support an
inference that an officer acted maliciously in using deadly force against
prisoners not involved in the fight. The delay in treatment supported a claim
for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Claims against one
officer concerning medical care were properly dismissed, as he summoned medical
assistance as soon as he became aware of the prisoner's injury. The prisoner
also stated a valid First Amendment claim, based on his assertion that he was
transferred to another facility in retaliation for threatening to bring a
grievance over the incident. Gomez v. Randle, #11-2962, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis
9656 (7th Cir.).
A 69-year-old prisoner on death row claimed that
prison doctors and the warden acted with deliberate indifference towards his
need for hip replacement surgery. The delay in approving such surgery on both
hips after the need for it was diagnosed by consulting orthopedic surgeons
could constitute a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The delay could be
found to have caused excruciating pain, rendering the prisoner barely able to
walk. He claimed that the warden instructed medical personnel to not
"knock yourself out" when death row inmates get "deathly
ill." Snow v. McDaniel, #10-16951, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 10646
(9th Cir.).
A prisoner serving a one year sentence was denied
a course of treatment for Hepatitis C because his sentence was not long enough
to provide for proper evaluation and treatment. When he was convicted again and
returned to prison, he was denied treatment again based on his past drug abuse
under a requirement that he successfully complete a substance abuse program
first. His assertion that the true reason he was denied treatment was financial
stated a possible Eighth Amendment claim. He could also proceed with his
disability discrimination claim on the basis that his drug addiction could be
regarded as a disability. The trial court's conclusion that a defendant doctor
was entitled to qualified immunity was improperly conclusory. Hilton v. Wright,
#10–135, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 5012 (2nd Cir.).
A female prisoner suffering from cervical cancer
had her ovary and lymph nodes removed during a radical hysterectomy, allegedly
without her consent. A federal appeals court rejected her civil rights claim,
however, finding no evidence of deliberate indifference to her serious medical
needs. Her contention that the removals of the ovary and lymph nodes were not
necessary because subsequent examination revealed that they were not cancerous
was, at most, medical negligence or a mere disagreement with the medical
treatment given, which was insufficient for a federal civil rights claim. Sama
v. Hannigan, #10-40835, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2107 (5th Cir.).
A death row prisoner claimed that the prison's
medical director was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need for
eye surgery. Overturning summary judgment for the defendant doctor, a federal
appeals court held that there were genuine issues of material fact as to
whether he ignored the prisoner's condition of pterygia, a thin film that
covers the eye. While that condition is often confined to the white part of the
eye, in this case it extended over the corneas, making his uncorrected vision
20/80 as a result, and causing persistent itching and irritation. There was a
record showing that a number of doctors recommended surgery, but that their
advice was not followed, and the prisoner's eyesight then further deteriorated.
Ortiz v. Webster, #10-2012, 655 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2011).
When he was attacked by another prisoner, a
pretrial detainee suffered painful injuries to his head and eyes. Despite
requesting medical attention, he allegedly received none for five days, and
instead was "locked down" for 72 hours following the attack, despite
the fact that officers allegedly knew of his obvious injuries, as evidenced by
blood, dizziness and vomiting and his complaints of extreme pain. Overturning
the dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to state a claim, the appeals court
ruled that "even a few days' delay in addressing a severely painful but
readily treatable condition suffices to state a claim of deliberate
indifference." Smith v. Knox County Jail, #10-1113, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis
1238 (7th Cir. 2012).
A prisoner claimed
that he had been improperly denied access to his medically-prescribed
therapeutic diet, and that this violated due process and constituted cruel and
unusual punishment. The diet was prescribed after a doctor concluded that his
triglyceride levels would benefit from a therapeutic diet low in saturated
fats. The prisoner's lawsuit lacked merit, as the interruptions in providing
the special diet were prompted by allegations that the prisoner was violating
mess hall rules, throwing away the special food, and routinely skipping his
specialized meals. When it became clear that some of these violations were not
proven and that others were the result of a misunderstanding, the special diet
was restored. Collazo v. Pagano, #09-4650, 656 F.3d 131 (2nd Cir. 2011).
An inmate at a privately run federal prison filed
a civil rights lawsuit against employees there for alleged deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs in connection with treatment of
injuries suffered in a fall. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, in these
circumstances, California state law provides adequate alternative damage
remedies for negligence or medical malpractice so that there is no need to
imply a federal constitutional civil rights cause of action against the private
employees. These state law remedies provide both adequate deterrence of similar
future conduct and compensation for any damages suffered. Minneci v.
Pollard, #10-1104, 2012 U.S. Lexis 573.
An inmate properly alleged an Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim against prison doctors for refusing to authorize
surgery for his painful hernia. The court also gave him leave to amend his
complaint to claim a violation of equal protection based on different treatment
of other prisoners with hernias. He claimed that budget constraints, rather
than medical judgment, was the real reason his surgery authorization was
refused. Gonzalez v. Feinerman, #11–1804, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 23927
(7th Cir.).
A prisoner who suffered broken bones in his wrist
failed to show deliberate indifference in connection with the medical treatment
that was provided, including application of a cast and provision of pain
medication. The fact that he would have preferred a different and stronger pain
medication as well as a "nerve conduction study" showed only a
difference of opinion, which is not enough for a constitutional violation. Hill
v. Curcione, #10-1320, 657 F.3d 116 (2nd Cir. 2011).
Prisoners stuffed a toilet, causing flooding, as
well as breaking light, because they were angry over being denied time in the
jail yard. A jail administrator allegedly then pushed one of these prisoners
who refused to "catch the wall" when ordered to do so. The prisoner
filed a federal civil rights lawsuit for excessive use of force. A federal
appeals court upheld the trial judge's ruling for the defendant, finding that
it was reasonable for him to use some amount of force against the prisoner
under these circumstances for his own safety. The medical records did not
support the prisoner's claimed version of the events, as they were not
consistent with the defendant having beaten him with a flashlight. Story v.
Norwood, #10-3178, 659 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2011).
A prisoner claimed that guards beat him
with excessive force after he pulled at his restraints and attempted to grab as
food cart. He further claimed that he was denied adequate medical attention
after the incident. The trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to the
guards on the excessive force claim, as there was an unresolved factual dispute
as to whether the prisoner ceased resisting after he was taken to the floor,
and whether the beating continued after his resistance ceased. Claims
concerning his medical care lacked merit, however, as the record showed that
the prisoner received "extensive" treatment for his toe and neck
injuries. Alspaugh v. McConnell, #08-2330, 643 F.3d 162
(6th Cir. 2011), rehearing denied, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 14675 (6th
Cir.).
A prisoner suffered from a serious
condition of rheumatoid arthritis and had previously taken the medication
Enbrel that successfully controlled it. When he arrived at a prison, it was
determined that the medication was not on the facility's approved formulary. Medical
staff members could be held liable for not either seeking approval to obtain
the medication or else looking into what alternative treatments would be
effective in controlling his condition. Arnett v. Webster, #09-3280, 2011 U.S.
App. Lexis 18812 (7th Cir.).
Because a county jail did not have the resources
to adequately handle pregnancy-related medical emergencies, a pregnant minor
stated a claim for deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs by
alleging that personnel there failed to rush her to a hospital when she began
having labor pains, and that she was not seen by a doctor until seven hours
later. She was subsequently taken to a hospital, but then returned to the jail,
where her baby was born, suffering various birth defects including severe
mental retardation and cerebral palsy. Havard v. Wayne County, #09-1235, 2011
U.S. App. Lexis 17404 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A contractor that provided health care services
at a county jail was entitled to summary judgment in a detainee's lawsuit for
alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Nine different
medical practitioners conducted evaluations of the detainee a total of 16 times
over a nine day period before deciding to send him to have a scan done that
ultimately showed that he required neurological surgery. This only constituted
a single incident, however, and was insufficient to show a policy or custom of
deliberate indifference. Craig v. Floyd County, #10-13225, 643 F.3d 1306 (11th
Cir. 2011).
An arrestee died of a heart arrhythmia, and there was
sufficient evidence that lockup personnel failed to adequately respond to her
complaints of abdominal pain to support a jury verdict for her estate. The jury
awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $4,000 in punitive damages. The
defendants were entitled to a new hearing on the issue of the proper damages to
be awarded, however, since the trial court erred in excluding evidence that the
prisoner was a drug addict with a prior arrest record, for the purpose of
refuting testimony from her son that she was a good role model. Cobige v. City
of Chicago, #10-3728, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 14253 (7th Cir.).
An obese diabetic woman allegedly asked for her
medications while in a police lockup, but these requests were denied. She subsequently
died in her cell, and a federal appeals court ruled that a number of guards
might be held liable for her death. The fact that arrestees are kept in police
lockups for a fairly short period of time, the court commented, "is not a
license for lockup keepers to deny all arrestees all medical care simply
because they will probably be transferred within 48 hours." Access to the
drugs was allegedly denied pursuant to a Chicago Police Department (CPD) policy
that prohibits arrestees from taking medications while in lockup unless they
are taken to a hospital. The appeals court reversed summary judgment for the
defendants on a claim for denial of adequate medical care. Ortiz v. City of
Chicago, #10-1775, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17759 (7th Cir.)
An HIV-positive prisoner who allegedly did not receive
his medication during a 167-day period of incarceration at a county jail stated
a viable claim for liability against a jail employee who allegedly stated that
"we don't give away" HIV medications "here at this jail."
There was also a genuine issue of fact as to whether a physician's assistant
acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner's medical needs. Leavitt v.
Correctional Medical Services, Inc., #10-1432, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 13269 (1st
Cir.).
A Wisconsin state statute that flatly prohibits
providing hormone therapy or sex reassignment surgery to transsexual prisoners
regardless of their medical needs is in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The
asserted interest in maintaining prison security did not justify denying
hormone therapy on the rationale that developing female secondary sexual
attributes, such as breasts, would subject transsexual inmates to an increased
risk of sexual assault. There was ample evidence that such prisoners are targets
for sexual assault even without hormone therapy. "Refusing to provide
effective treatment for a serious medical condition serves no valid penological
purpose and amounts to torture." Fields v. Smith, #10-2339, 2011 U.S. App.
Lexis 16152 (7th Cir.).
An immigration detainee claimed that medical
personnel failed to give him pain medication that he was prescribed after hand
surgery, inhibiting his rehabilitation and causing permanent injury to his
hand. Rejecting this claim, the appeals court noted that the medication had to
be taken with food, and that the detainee failed to benefit from the medical
treatment provided because he refused to eat the food he was dissatisfied with.
His reason for doing so was that he wanted halal meals containing meat, for religious
reasons, but he was provided with vegetarian meals that did not violate his
right to religious freedom. Any denial of pain medication was based on his
refusal to eat. Adekoya v. Chertoff, #11-1990, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 12685
(Unpub. 3rd Cir.). Editor's Note: As an immigration detainee, the plaintiff was
entitled to the same protections as a pretrial detainee, those provided by the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, the court found
that the medical care provided did not constitute punishment that violated due
process.
A federal prisoner had a number of serious
medical conditions, including a history of epilepsy, non-insulin dependent
diabetes, disc herniation surgery, a history of head trauma with loss of
consciousness causing seizures, and cardiac catheterization, as well as
allergies to a number of antibiotics. He claimed that medical personnel at a
facility violated his rights by placing him on a different pain medication than
he had previously been prescribed by his private physicians and neurosurgeons
without consulting them. The appeals court found that this did not amount to
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Albert v. Yost, #11-1453,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 12401 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that medical personnel
acted with deliberate indifference in failing to diagnose and treat his Fuchs'
dystrophy, a corneal disease, since the record showed that they repeatedly
examined him (no less than seven times in a nine month period), and recommended
piggyback lenses and artificial tears in response to his reports of eye pain.
Zuege v. Knoch, #10-3373, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 10221 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
New York
City has reached a $2 million settlement in a lawsuit alleging that an intoxicated
postal worker, detained after a dispute in which he was barred from his
apartment, died in custody from the untreated effect of severe alcohol
withdrawal. The decedent had reportedly told jail medical personnel that he had
been drinking two or three pints of rum a day, and he appeared agitated and
disoriented. The defendants subsequently allegedly failed to follow a written
protocol on treatment of severe alcohol withdrawal, which includes
hospitalization. Instead, he was kept in the jail's general population, and
died approximately 28 hours after his arrival there. Livermore v. City of New
York, $1:08-CV-04442, (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011).
A prisoner failed to show that his occasional
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in an outdoor recreational yard
as a result of guards smoking rose to the level required to impose liability.
This requires: "(1) exposure to unreasonably high levels of ETS contrary
to contemporary standards of decency; and (2) deliberate indifference by the
authorities to the exposure to ETS." Turner v. Leggett, #10-4654, 2011
U.S. App. Lexis 7095 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
While there was evidence that the plaintiff
prisoner had asthma, the record did not support his argument that his level of
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in Michigan state prisons
amounted to a serious threat to his health in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, as opposed to "mere discomfort." His asthma was
"relatively minor," and could be managed through the use of an inhaler
and other medication. There also was insufficient evidence to support his claim
that he was transferred to another facility, with allegedly worse ETS, in
retaliation for complaining about ETS. Jones v. Caruso, #10-1515, 2011 U.S.
App. Lexis 8729; (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A paraplegic prisoner serving a 180-day sentence
in a county jail was subject to bed sores and had a condition of edema
requiring foot elevation, as well as having severe spasticity requiring
elevation of his upper body. The jail's director was properly held liable for
$214,000 in compensatory and $250,000 in punitive damages. The facts showed
that the director falsely told a judge that the jail was able to handle the
prisoner's medical care, and failed to check to see that the prisoner was
receiving accommodations ordered by his doctors. Schaub v. Von Wald, #10-1280,
638 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2011).
A Massachusetts pre-trial detainee was addicted
to heroin when first confined, and was forced to abstain from its use. Under
the direction of medical personnel, he was given medication to ease the
"agony of withdrawal." A federal appeals court held that no
reasonable fact finder could find that a doctor had acted with deliberate
indifference to the prisoner's serious medical needs, as the treatment protocol
followed had been applied to thousands of prisoners undergoing drug withdrawal,
and the prisoner's condition was carefully and frequently monitored. Ramos v.
Patnaude, #09-2179, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 10356 (1st Cir.).
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the order of a
special three-judge court ordering that the California state prison system
reduce its population from 156,000 prisoners, nearly double capacity, by
approximately 46,000 prisoners, or 137.5% of design capacity within two years.
Current overcrowding was found to have resulted in inadequate medical care and
mental health treatment. The Court found that the injunctive order complied
with the stringent requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and that
the court below properly gave "substantial weight" to any potential
adverse impact on public safety from the order. Brown v. Plata, #09–1233, 2011
U.S. Lexis 4012.
A prisoner convicted of child rape, kidnapping,
and robbery finished their sentence and was then civilly committed as a
sexually dangerous person. The prisoner, who is anatomically male but suffers
from gender identity disorder changed their name in 1996 from David to Sandy
and sought treatment including the administration of female hormones and access
to female clothing. These requests were rejected as "bizarre at best and
psychotic at worst." Ultimately one dose of female hormones was
administered in 2009, but then further treatment ceased. A federal appeals
court upheld a finding of deliberate indifference "or an unreasonable
professional judgment exercised--even though it does not rest on any
established sinister motive or 'purpose' to do harm." It also upheld an
injunctive order requiring hormone therapy, noting that it had been fifteen
years since the prisoner had requested such treatment and ten years since
medical professionals had recommended that it be provided. Batista v. Clarke,
#10-1965, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 10308 (1st Cir.).
A juvenile detainee arrested in Oklahoma
complained of a headache and dizziness and was told to go to sleep. When the
problem persisted, he was given Tylenol. His headaches and nausea continued, he
fell down, and he was ultimately found non-responsive in his cell. He had
suffered a traumatic brain injury which left him non-verbal and non-ambulatory
and he also requires a ventilator to breathe and intravenous feeding. Claims of
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need survived summary judgment, as
a jury could reasonably find that a correctional officer improperly delayed
calling 911 and having the detainee taken to a hospital. Colbert ex rel. T.D.S.
v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, #10-6145, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 3877 (10th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that medical personnel
exhibited deliberate indifference to his knee injury by failing to prescribe
surgery instead of physical therapy, and by failing to more quickly arrange for
a follow-up with an orthopedist. The federal appeals court, however, found that
the knee injury was not serious enough that the alleged actions, even if true,
amounted to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. No medical
records demonstrated a need for surgery, and the inmate appeared to respond
well to the physical therapy provided. Goris v. Breslin, #10-0491, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 24462 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
A detainee in a county jail failed to show that
anything about his medical treatment there for diabetes and high blood
pressure, as well as coronary artery disease, had caused him to suffer a
stroke. Harold v. County of Orange, #G043532, 2011 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 2468
(Unpub. 4th Dist.).
When an inmate failed to seek to obtain his
medical records until just before the deadline to designate an expert medical
witness for his medical malpractice claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act,
his failure to designate an expert justified staying discovery and then
granting summary judgment to the defendant. Fujita v. United States, #10-10258,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4218 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner's claim that a prison staff member
denied him medical treatment for an injury to his hand that had already been
prescribed was sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. Criollo v. Milton, #10-40346, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4207
(Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A Tennessee prisoner adequately stated claims
against two defendants for allegedly providing him with inadequate treatment
for tuberculosis. He claimed that he was given the seizure medication intended
for another patient, and that he was allegedly sent to the medical unit without
an escort after it was determined that he took the wrong medication, as a
result of which he fell down an escalator from being dizzy, suffering injuries.
The claims that survived included one that a defendant abandoned him after his
fall, providing no further medical care for his injuries, and that the prison
medical director allegedly failed to adequately supervise the treatment
provided to him. Barnett v. Luttrell, #08-6432, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4873
(Unpub. 6th Cir.).
Despite a prisoner's claim that he could not
obtain the legal materials he needed to assert his claims about a beating by a
corrections officer and inadequate medical care for resulting injury, the
record showed that he was granted several extensions of time, but failed to
communicate with the court until the month after he obtained the materials in
question. Under these circumstances, the dismissal of his lawsuit for failure
to obtain service on defendant corrections officers was upheld. McGrew v.
McQueen, #09-30937, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4852 (5th Cir.).
Trial court did not act improperly in dismissing
prisoner's lawsuit claiming that prison officials failed to process his
grievances and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, as
well as failing to protect him against assault by other prisoners. The prisoner
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a timely grievance
regarding his medical care, and failed to present any evidence that guards were
aware of any specific threats to him by other prisoners. His First Amendment
claim concerning the defendants' forcible termination of his hunger strike was
properly rejected since he had no First Amendment right to refuse medical
treatment intended to save his life. Owens v. Hinsley, #09-3618, 2011 U.S. App.
Lexis 5360 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he was denied medical
treatment for his diabetes and Hepatitis C in retaliation for engaging in
protected First Amendment activity of speaking out about prison health needs
and seeking access to the courts. His complaint was dismissed under the
"three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Reversing, a federal appeals court held that his claim fell within an
"imminent danger" exception to the three strikes rule, since he claimed
that he was still receiving improper care for retaliatory reasons. Vandiver v.
Vasbinder, #08-2602, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6325 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A prisoner's claim that he was improperly
disciplined for defiance in retaliation for refusing to consent to an invasive
medical procedure should not have been dismissed. The trial court improperly
applied a subjective legal standard to the issue of whether the prisoner
suffered adversity from the alleged retaliatory act. The disciplinary action
resulted in his loss of 180 days of good time credit and confinement in
isolation for ten days. The sanctions imposed were more than minimal, as the
trial court seemed to regard them, and it was not required that the plaintiff
show that the sanctions imposed actually deterred him from exercising his
constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. Hanna v. Maxwell, #10-30053,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4335 (5th Cir.).
The evidence presented in a prisoner's lawsuit
showed that the prison medical staff was attentive to his fractured finger and
that he received ongoing and frequent treatment. It did not reflect any
evidence of deliberate indifference to his need for treatment. Clemons v. King,
#10-60345, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21580 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner suffering from ulcerative colitis and
gastro esophageal reflux disease claimed that two prison doctors provided him
with inadequate care. A federal appeals court ruled that the prisoner
adequately stated a deliberate indifference claim against one doctor for
substituting the drug Prilosec for the drug Prevacid when the prisoner's
medical records indicated that he could not tolerate Prilosec. The fact that
Prilosec, and not Prevacid, was available in the prison's pharmacy was not an
adequate reason for prescribing a harmful drug. A claim about the postponement
of a colonoscopy was rejected because it related to a medical judgment about
the optimal timing of the procedure, rather than deliberate indifference to the
prisoner's need for treatment, and the prisoner did not show that the delay
caused him any harm. Gallo v. Feinerman, #09-3575, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 22932
(Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A prisoner who is an insulin dependent diabetic
claimed that a correctional officer denied him access to medical attention by
turning him back when he sought to go to the prison's medication line to obtain
a medication called Glipizide. He had been experiencing a loss of feeling in
his arms, numbness in his fingertips, and feelings of nausea and
lightheadedness. The officer made him return to his cell block to obtain a pass
despite the prisoner's statement that he needed medication. He was able to get
the medicine later that day. While the officer may have known of the prisoner's
diabetes and need for medication, there was no evidence that he knew the prisoner
faced a serious risk of harm from a delay in obtaining medication. He did not
indicate any desire to deny him treatment, only asking him to follow the pass
procedure. The prisoner failed to show any harm caused by the delay. Perkins v.
Schwappach, #10-2487, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 22949 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that personnel at a county
jail were deliberately indifferent to his chronic sinusitis. A federal appeals
court ruled that the plaintiff's claims really amounted merely to disagreement
about the proper treatment to be provided. He was seen by a dentist and an oral
surgeon, but the oral surgeon concluded that he did not have a fistula and that
his sinus problem was not related to his tooth pain, and referred him an ear,
nose, and throat doctor for evaluation. The failure to provide him with an oral
surgeon earlier did not show deliberate indifference. The prisoner was seen by
the jail's medical staff 25 times in a six month period, and was later referred
eight times to at least four different specialists, as well as given
antibiotics and pain killers for his symptoms. Mills v. Luplow, #10-584, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 18766 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
A prison medical director was properly held
liable for $20,000 in compensatory and $20,000 in punitive damages to the
estate of an inmate who died of allegedly untreated Hepatitis C. Summary
judgment was properly entered on the claims of three other plaintiffs, as those
prisoners could not show that they suffered specific harm from a treatment
protocol for hepatitis C to prisoners who could complete a two-year course of
treatment while still incarcerated. The deceased prisoner's Eighth Amendment
rights had been violated, since his death from liver cirrhosis resulted, and
the treatment protocol did not take his individual condition into account. A
shorter than 48 week treatment would have been appropriate for his condition.
Roe v. Elyea, #09-1723, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 1781 (7th Cir.). Editor's
note: The $20,000 in punitive damages was reduced, by the trial court, from
the jury's $2 million punitive damages award.
The trial court acted erroneously in granting the
defendant's motion for summary judgment in a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit
over the prison medical staff's failure to discontinue the plaintiff prisoner's
use of aspirin at least five days before surgery based on the plaintiff's
failure to submit an expert's report. The court ruled that it was
"obvious" that the staff should have told the prisoner that aspirin
is a blood thinner and that failure to stop taking it before surgery could lead
to serious internal bleeding. An expert's report was not needed, especially as
there was a surgeon's medical report indicating that the failure to discontinue
the use of aspirin had caused post-surgery complications. Gipson v. U.S.,
#09-2756, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 1573 (7th Cir.).
A Wisconsin inmate claimed that prison medical
personnel and administrators acted with deliberate indifference to his
allegedly untreated nose condition and unhealed cuts, sores, and bruises.
Upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit, the appeals court found no indication
that the defendants were aware of, yet disregarded, a serious medical
condition. The prisoner's complaint itself indicated that medical personnel
spent a good deal of time giving him medical treatment on multiple occasions,
although they concluded, after diagnosing his nose and skin conditions, that
they "merited limited medical treatment." Any delay in treating the
"minor maladies" that the plaintiff claimed resulted from the medical
staff's choice to treat other maladies first. "This conclusion is sound
because the medical personnel had no reason to believe that anything serious
would arise from temporarily delaying treatment of a congested nose and skin condition."
Slater v. Lemens, #10-1409, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23307 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
An officer used force in a good-faith attempt to
restore discipline, rather than sadistically and maliciously in responding to
an inmate who used profanity and provoked a verbal altercation. The two men
bumped chests, and the officer bent the prisoner over a table and punched him
in the nose when he continued to resist as other inmates started to circle
around. The officer required the assistance of a co-worker to subdue the
prisoner. The officer was aware of the prisoner's nosebleed, but did not
believe that it was a serious medical condition requiring immediate treatment.
McClyde v. Jackson, #10-20139, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 26076 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee in a county jail contracted
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (“MRSA”), a staph infection
resistant to usual penicillin-type antibiotics. A jury awarded him damages.
Upholding this result and a finding of county liability, a federal appeals court
found that there was evidence that the county knew of the presence of a staph
infection in the jail, including an infection rate as high as 20%, yet failed
to adopt known measures that would have combated it, such as installing hand
washing and disinfecting stations and using alcohol-based hand sanitizers, and
continued to house detainees in conditions leading to infection. Duvall v.
Dallas Cty., #09-10660, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 660 (5th Cir.).
Claims against a physician's assistant for
deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs were properly
rejected, as the prisoner's assertion that the defendant misdiagnosed her
condition, failing to determine that her knee injury from a fall was serious,
involving fractures, and failing to order x-rays merely stated a possible
ordinary medical malpractice (negligence) claim, which was insufficient for a
federal civil rights lawsuit. Grose v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.,
#09-2168, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23907 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A federal prisoner sentenced to death for killing
an officer, had a bullet lodged in his hip from gunfire during his arrest. He
sued prison personnel for failing to remove the bullet, which he claimed causes
him dermatitis (rashes). Medical personnel, however, examined him and found
that the removal of the bullet was not medically indicated and its presence did
not cause any pain or restrict any movement. He was provided with treatment for
his dermatitis numerous times, refuting any claim of deliberate indifference. Any
negligence in failing to remove the bullet was insufficient for a federal civil
rights claim. Barrett v. Marberry, #10-1959, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 24570 (Unpub.
7th Cir.).
A prisoner sued a prison doctor, a physician's
assistant, and a private company involved in providing inmate health care,
claiming that they provided inadequate care for an "inflamed and ruptured
disc" in his back that resulted in numbness in his legs and toes. He
claimed that the doctor "avoided" him for four months, and then
provided him with ineffective pain medication, and that the physician's
assistant, during three or four sick calls, wrongly concluded that there was
nothing wrong with his back. Claims against the private company were properly
dismissed, as the prisoner did not assert that it had any policy, practice, or
custom that led to his alleged injury or any direct involvement in the alleged
misconduct. The prisoner failed to support his claim of deliberate indifference
against the prison doctor, as there was no support for his claim that the
doctor was avoiding him, and he was treated by the doctor after he threw out
his back. There was also no evidence that the doctor purposefully prescribed
ineffective pain medication. The failure of the physician's assistance to find
anything wrong with the plaintiff's back was, at most, negligence, which is
insufficient for a federal civil rights claim. Weigher v. Prison Health
Services, #10-3089, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 24129 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A New York prisoner claimed that he was provided
with inadequate medical care from 1988 t0 2008. He argued that medical reports
he obtained in 2008 showed that he suffered from a chronic urinary infection
that was not properly diagnosed or treated until then. He based this, however,
solely on his own analysis of those records. A federal appeals court found
that, as the prisoner was not a doctor, this was insufficient to establish a
claim for deliberate indifference to an alleged serious medical need. Trained
medical personnel, relying on the same records and reports, concluded that the
prisoner had been suffering from no such infection, and when later reports did,
in fact, indicate an infection, they provided antibiotic treatment. Further,
any prior failure to diagnose an infection, assuming there was one, would have
constituted, at most, a negligent misdiagnosis, rather than the deliberate
indifference required for a federal civil rights case. Whitfield v. O'Connell,
#10-1398, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23968 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
An arrestee claimed that a booking officer was
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to get him
medical attention for injuries allegedly suffered from a police beating during
his arrest. Upholding summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for
the officer, a federal appeals court noted that the arrestee did not request
medical attention, and that it was not objectively apparent that he had a
serious medical need. Youmans v. Gagnon, #09-15113, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23534
(11th Cir.).
An inmate allegedly started losing significant
weight and experiencing abdominal pain. Ultimately, a large cancerous mass was
found inside him, and he died. A lawsuit by his estate claimed that his
requests for medical help were, at times, ignored, and that some prison
personnel thought he was faking his illness and commented that prisoners were
"not supposed" to "feel good." Claims against correctional
officers were rejected, as the evidence did not establish the culpability of any
specific officer. There was, however, sufficient evidence to raise a genuine
question as to whether two nurses knew of the prisoner's medical needs yet
ignored the risk to his health. A doctor's actions did not amount to
"grossly inadequate care," and there was no indication that the
county had a custom of deliberate indifference to inmate medical needs. Jones
v. Muskegon County, #09-2125, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23034 (6th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that prison employees denied
him access to prescribed crutches after his heel surgery, and forced him to
perform tasks, such as cleaning his cell, despite his status of recuperating
from surgery. The record, however, showed that the prisoner was allowed to use
the crutches even after the date when he was told by medical personnel that he
should start to discontinue using them. He was only denied them after prison
personnel received information from his orthopedist's office about his
weight-bearing status. The prisoner also failed to show that cleaning his cell
either caused him further injury or worsened his existing injury. Young v.
Nichols, #09-15790, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20619 (Unpub.11th Cir.).
A Pennsylvania prisoner claimed that conditions
at the facility, including inadequate ventilation in his cell, exposure to
extreme heat and cold, rodent infestation, and overcrowding (allegedly
increasing the risk of infectious diseases) amounted to cruel and unusual
punishment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. A
federal appeals court ruled that the prisoner's transfer to another facility
rendered most of his arguments on appeal moot, such as his request for
injunctive relief, as he had not shown that he was likely to be again subjected
to the same alleged conditions. What was not moot was his claim for money
damages, based solely on an alleged risk of future harm as a result of exposure
to coal smoke in the prison yard. The appeals court upheld the rejection of
this claim, as the prisoner had presented no medical or scientific evidence
that he faces an actual risk of future harm. Griffin v. Beard, #09-4404, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 23659 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A former pretrial detainee claimed that she was
subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at a county detention
facility. Specifically, she claimed that she was forced to take medication
without food, which resulted in stomach problems and rendered the medication
ineffective. Such a claim, the appeals court ruled, required expert testimony
as the seriousness of the possible injury or illness would not be
apparent. "Whether a medication is ineffective if it is given without food
is not readily apparent to a lay person." Since the plaintiff offered no
such expert testimony, summary judgment for the defendants was properly entered
on this claim. The plaintiff also challenged her confinement, at times, in
"the green room," which had green tile on three of the walls and a
fourth wall made of glass, lacked any furnishings or stationary objects,
including a traditional toilet, but did have an eight inch drain in the middle
of the floor covered by a grate. The room was used to observe "people
coming down from drugs, violent people or people on suicide watch." The
plaintiff had allegedly engaged in self-destructive behavior. The appeals court
acknowledged that "the absence of a traditional toilet may deprive an
inmate of access to the usual sanitation measures afforded other inmates who
are not at risk of hurting themselves." Two other cells adjacent to the
green room, however, were equipped with traditional toilet facilities, and
inmates confined in the green room are given access to these traditional toilet
facilities upon request. Additionally, in the event an inmate utilizes the
drain to relieve himself/herself, prison staff members were required to clean
the room as soon as it is safe to do so. Patterson v. County of Washington,
#08-3649, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19496 (Unpub.3rd Cir.).
A woman detained at a county jail following a domestic
disturbance became involved in an altercation with a female deputy. After other
officers aided this deputy in restraining the detainee and she remained
restrained on the floor, the deputy allegedly grabbed her head and slammed it
to the floor seven to eight times, causing cuts and bruises on her face and
leaving a pool of blood on the floor. Upholding a denial of summary judgment
for the deputy on an excessive force claim, a federal appeals court ruled that
this conduct, if true, was force obviously beyond what the law would allow.
Summary judgment was granted, however, on a claim of deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs arising from the incident. Pourmoghani-Esfahani v. Gee,
#10-10020, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23205 (11th Cir.).
The alleged misdiagnosis of a prisoner's foot and
stomach pain by prison medical personnel, and their alleged failure to warn him
of the potential side effects of pain medication was, at most, negligence, and
could not be the basis for a federal civil rights lawsuit for deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. Burgess v. Mar, #09-17070, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 18862 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A Wisconsin prisoner claimed that a doctor acted
with deliberate indifference by failing to see him for almost four weeks after
he complained of problems arising from reconstructive surgery he had on his
ankle two years earlier. He claimed that the screws in the ankle were loose and
that he could barely step on the ankle, and that he was experiencing pain. A
nurse noted that he was walking with a limp. The court found that the doctor
had no reason to believe that the prisoner was not receiving medication for the
pain, and the records showed that, once the doctor saw the prisoner and took an
x-ray, no further procedures were indicated.While the doctor prescribed some
pain medication, the record also reflected that the prisoner himself had not
been refilling a prescription he already had for a another non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drug. No reasonable jury could find that the doctor acted
with deliberate indifference, and the delay really only amounted to nine days
after the doctor became aware of the situation. The delay was not unreasonably
long, given that it related to surgery that took place two years earlier.
Schaller v. Heinzl, #10-1141, 2010 U.S. App. Leis 18674 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that prison employees were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because they refused to
provide him with a new pair of high-top work boots for a period of
approximately seven months. While the prisoner had a medical pass to have the
boots replaced, his request was denied under a prison policy that boots be
issued only to field workers, and not to prisoners assigned to work in the
kitchen. Given the prisoner's assignment to a kitchen job, the appeals court
ruled, the denial of the boots was not an action that was in reckless disregard
of his health or could be termed wanton under the Eighth Amendment. His lawsuit
was, therefore, properly dismissed. Ganther v. Dalton, #09-41220, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 19898 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee failed to show that his
supposedly adverse reaction to HDQ Neutral, a cleaning product used at the
county jail, involved a serious medical need for purposes of trying to
establish that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference in violation
of his constitutional rights. The prisoner, who was taking medication for
asthma, alleged that exposure to the cleaning product caused him to "cough
up blood." The record indicated that a reasonable jury could find that the
prisoner did not show that a physician or other medical personnel had diagnosed
him with a medical condition that required treatment while he was detained. An
examination of the prisoner revealed only some nasal drainage, and otherwise
found him in normal condition, with an instruction that he should move away
from where the cleaning products were being used. While one doctor later stated
an opinion that chemicals used at the jail caused medical problems for the
prisoner, a competing expert rejected the diagnosis of asthma, and found no
evidence of pulmonary fibrosis in a CT scan. The jury thus reasonably
determined that the prisoner failed to establish a serious medical need while
incarcerated. Christian v. Wagner, #09-2417, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21609(8th
Cir.).
Two elderly Arkansas prisoners claimed that
correctional employees and employees of a company providing medical services to
inmates were deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs. The first
prisoner, in his early eighties, asserted that he had complained for years of
stomach and back pain, but did not receive adequate treatment. The second
prisoner, who is 66 and suffers from poorly controlled insulin-dependent
diabetes, claimed that a lapse in treatment following surgery for a broken
ankle caused or exacerbated the effects of a condition known as "Charcot
foot," which may make it difficult to walk. The appeals court held that
these were assertions of serious medical conditions, and that if an
administrator knew that these needs were not being adequately addressed, but
was deliberately indifferent, he could be held personally liable. He could not
avoid such liability by merely passing along complaints to a grievance
procedure, as alleged, and he was not entitled to qualified immunity. The court
also denied qualified immunity on claims that officials oversaw or designed an
inadequate grievance system that resulted in denials of adequate medical
treatment. Langford v. Norris, #09-1862, 614 F.3d 445 (8th Cir. 2010).
The mere fact that a prisoner disagreed with prison
doctors regarding whether he should be provided with the medication Ritalin to
treat his Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD")
condition, did not amount to deliberate indifference, and it was undisputed
that doctors prescribed a different medication for treatment. Brady v.
Fishback, #09-15609, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18034 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
The estate of a man who died of a
gastrointestinal hemorrhage while in a county jail as a pretrial detainee
claimed that the sheriff failed to adequately train and supervise medical staff
at the jail and maintained a policy of deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs. The sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity, as the plaintiff
failed to present sufficient evidence of deliberate indifference or objective
unreasonableness. "A 'pattern' of verbal nurse intimidation and harassment
cannot alone place a supervisor on notice that inmates are receiving medical
care so deficient as to violate the Constitution." Brown v. Callahan, #09-10843,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21442 (5th Cir.).
An arrestee seated in the booking room of a jail
was subjected to a short burst of pepper spray, and subsequently placed in the
back of a patrol car for approximately an hour. He claimed that he was never
allowed to decontaminate, and that his repeated complaints of breathing
problems and repeated requests for medical attention after he was removed from
the car were ignored. In an excessive force lawsuit, he claimed that he
developed Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS) from the lengthy pepper
spray exposure. A federal appeals court held that the plaintiff had adequately
established that an officer was aware of his serious need for medical
attention, but ignored it, which stated a claim for violation of his Fourteenth
Amendment rights. Nasseri v. City of Athens, #09-11473, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
7297 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
While a prisoner claimed that a prison doctor had
determined that he suffered nerve damage to his wrists because of officers' delay
in getting him medical attention following an incident in which overly tight
restraints were placed on him, he could not establish his claim simply by his
own unsupported affidavit, and without any medical records or other evidence
showing this. The prisoner's appeal of summary judgment for the defendants was
frivolous. Wallin v. Dycus, #09-1407, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 11263 (Unpub. 10th
Cir.).
A jury rejected a prisoner's claim that a jail
sergeant and a doctor were deliberately indifferent and ignored his need for
Crohn's disease treatment and replacement eyeglasses. Upholding this result,
the appeals court rejected arguments that the trial court erred in failing to
provide him with an appointed lawyer for his lawsuit, since the prisoner was
literate and capable of asserting his own claims. The trial judge also did not
err in allowing the defense to use evidence of the plaintiff's criminal
convictions for the limited purpose of challenging the truthfulness of his
testimony. Romanelli v. Suliene, #08-1762, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17016 (7th
Cir.).
A prisoner failed to present sufficient evidence
to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs based on the treatment
and medications provided for his headaches. A mere difference of opinion as to
the appropriate course of treatment for a medical problem cannot constitute
deliberate indifference. The trial court, however, did improperly dismiss
claims against one defendant who allegedly got him taken off of Valium by lying
to the prisoner's medical provider about him being a benzodiazepines seeker in
retaliation for the plaintiff exercising his First Amendment rights. Angelone
v. Furst, #09-35437, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 15168 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A prisoner's neck was broken after he fell from
his bunk, and he stated that he was in extreme pain and had no feeling in his
shoulder below his neck. A doctor, however, told him that she could find
nothing wrong with his neck and discharged him. Other doctors diagnosed the
broken neck six days later. The prisoner claimed that the first doctor refused
to give him pain medication and that the doctor and a nurse also ignored a
guard's calls made after he started to choke on his own vomit. He also claimed
that the doctor said that she would find out what was causing him to vomit if
he wasn't an inmate. A federal appeals court found that these allegations, if
true, sufficiently stated a claim for deliberate indifference. Claims against
an x-ray technician who allegedly misread the prisoner's x-ray constituted, at
most negligence and medical malpractice, and were insufficient for a federal
civil rights claim. Loosier v. Unknown Doctor, #09-40743, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
11040 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner's right to adequate medical treatment
was not violated by the denial of the specific low-dosage maintenance treatment
for his hepatitis C condition that he requested. This treatment was
"unproven in long term studies," and the prisoner's treating and
consulting doctors agreed that the treatment had no known benefits. The
prisoner did receive other, medically accepted treatments. Wooley v. New York
State Department of Correctional Services, #129, 2010 N.Y. Lexis 1347.
A prisoner suffering from chronic myelogenous
leukemia failed to show that his medical treatment was inadequate, since he
received extensive care, and a mere disagreement about the form of his
medication did not show deliberate indifference. Also, the inmate was moved to
a new cell after he complained of second hand smoke. Glazewski v. Corzine,
#10-1371, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13510 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A federal prisoner filed a Texas state law
medical malpractice claim against a radiologist who interpreted the MRI of his
injured right biceps muscle and the hospital where the MRI was done. The
radiologist first reported that the MRI showed no demonstrable injuries, but
two months later, reexamined the test results, and found a partial and almost
total rupture of the biceps muscle. The trial magistrate found that the
prisoner was not entitled to a court appointed expert to help prove his claim.
A federal appeals court found that the prisoner failed to preserve for appeal
his objection to the denial of his motion for an appointed expert, and that
summary judgment was appropriate on his medical malpractice claims, which could
not be established without expert testimony. Patel v. Baluyot, #09-40272, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 13442 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A federal investigation into conditions at Cook
County Jail in Chicago, Illinois allegedly found widespread unconstitutional
conditions resulting in unnecessary inmate deaths and amputations, inadequate
medical care, and routine prisoner beatings. The federal government settled a
lawsuit with the county in an effort to remedy these problems. The agreement
calls for the hiring of 600 additional jail guards, the hiring of four new
outside jail monitors, and improvements in jail medical and mental health
facilities. It also provides for stepped-up inspections for contraband and more
video surveillance of inmate housing. U.S.A. v. Cook County, Illinois,
#10-C-2946 (U.S. Dist Ct., N.D. Ill., May 13, 2010). Click here to read the
Complaint in the case. Click here to read the press release announcing the
settlement agreement.
A prisoner suffered a head injury when a
showerhead broke. He claimed that a maintenance worker, a nurse, and a number
of supervisory personnel, violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The prisoner
failed to show how the maintenance worker acted with deliberate indifference
towards the risk that he might be injured by the showerhead. The nurse cleaned
and dressed his wound, provided him with pain medication, and encouraged him to
rest, which did not amount to deliberate indifference to his medical needs,
Finally, the supervisory personnel were not shown to have been personally
involved in anything that could result in their liability for the prisoner's
injury. Sanaah v. Howell, #10-1000,2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13038 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A prisoner sued a private care center, its
director, and its medical personnel for deliberate indifference and negligence.
The federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation that the
complaint be dismissed with prejudice, as prior Fourth Circuit precedent
declined to extend Bivens civil rights causes of action to private persons and
entities whose only relationship to the federal government was by contract,
particularly when adequate state law remedies exist for the alleged harm suffered.
Despite the prisoner's argument that his claim was more a matter of violation
of civil rights than of state law medical malpractice, a medical malpractice
claim was an adequate state law remedy. Eddington v. Wyatt; #8:09-cv-02669,
2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1950 (D.S.C.).
While detained by immigration authorities, a
prisoner claimed that he "persistently" sought treatment for a
bleeding, suppurating lesion. While a Public Health Service (PHS) physician's
assistant and three outside specialists repeatedly advised that he urgently
needed a biopsy, a PHS physician and a commissioned PHS officer allegedly
denied that request. After the prisoner's release from custody, he had tests
that confirmed the presence of metastatic cancer. He filed a lawsuit asserting
both medical negligence claims against the U.S. government under the Federal
Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346, 2671-2680, and constitutional claims against
the individual defendants under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Officers,
#301, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The plaintiff subsequently died, and the lawsuit was
continued by his estate. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, under 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 233(a), the Federal Tort Claims Act is the exclusive remedy for any claims
against any PHS employees or officers for damages for personal injury,
including death, arising out of the performance of medical functions while
acting within the scope of employment. As a result, the constitutional claims
under Bivens were barred. Hui v. Castaneda, #08-1529, 130 S. Ct. 1845 (2010).
A prisoner claimed that he was not afforded
proper medical treatment after undergoing testicular surgery. A doctor and
assistant, however, provided affidavits and the prisoner's medical records
showing that he received treatment and care for his ongoing testicular
problems. Additionally, while the prisoner argued that he should have been
given crutches or a wheelchair after the surgery, the doctor stated that
neither was medically required. Further, there were records showing that he
did, indeed, receive crutches after a hematoma was removed, and that he
received pain medication and other care after both the testicular surgery and
the removal of the hematoma. There was no showing of deliberate indifference.
Watts v. Herbik, #09-4144, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2707 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
While a prisoner may not have received attention
for his burns as quickly as he wished, or even as promptly as would be ideal,
there was no deliberate indifference in treating his injuries. Indeed, every
time he sought medical attention, it was provided either immediately or within
a few hours. Additionally, when the prison staff believed that an outside
evaluation of his burns was needed, he was taken to a hospital. The court also
held that the Bureau of Prison's Inmate Accident Compensation procedures set
forth in 28 C.F.R. § 301.101 et seq. was the plaintiff's exclusive remedy
against the government, so that the court lacked jurisdiction to address his
Federal Tort Claims Act claim. Walker v. Reese, #08-60994, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
2409 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that prison nurses
acted with deliberate indifference by allegedly denying him pain medications
and anticoagulant injections, particularly as they had no authority to
prescribe drugs or commence a different course of treatment. Claims against a
nurse manager were also properly dismissed since she never saw the plaintiff
and took no actions relating to his treatment. Thayer v. Adams, #08-20817, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 2392 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner who complained of back pain was seen by
prison medical staff several times, diagnosed as suffering from degenerative
disc disease, and provided with a wheelchair, medications, an early meal pass
and a "lay idle" pass. He also underwent surgery, which was
recommended by an orthopedic specialist, but continued to have problems with
incontinence and numbness in his extremities after the surgery. His lawsuit
claimed that these difficulties were caused by a delay in approving the
surgery. The defendant doctor, however, was shown to have responded reasonably
to the inmate's back pain complaints, and could not be found to have acted with
deliberate indifference. White v. Buser, #09-3322, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6823
(Unpub. 10th Cir.).
An inmate failed to show that the defendant
sheriff had personally been involved in or had personal knowledge of his
allegedly inadequate medical care, so he could not be held liable in his
individual capacity. On claims against the sheriff in his official capacity, the
prisoner did not claim that an alleged delay in providing him with medication
had caused him any injury. Braga v. Hodgson, #08-2331, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
9899 (1st Cir.).
A prison commissioner could not be held liable
for alleged inadequate medical care provided to a prisoner, in the absence of
any showing that he was personally responsible for the policies of private
medical services contractors that supposedly led to a delay in needed knee
surgery. Johnson v. Stempler, #08-3434, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6635 (Unpub. 3rd
Cir.).
A prisoner was allegedly forced to shower in a
dirty shower area without proper footwear, and three days later became very
sick with flu-like symptoms and a swollen leg. While a correctional officer saw
this and allegedly said, "that looks really bad," the prisoner was
not taken to the medical department until three days later. A federal appeals
court ruled that the trial court improperly granted the defendant officer's
untimely oral motion for summary judgment, after jury selection, and on the eve
of trial, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), and denied the
plaintiff inmate an adequate opportunity to respond to the motion. Drippe v.
Tobelinski, #08-4616, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 9990 (3rd Cir.).
A federal prisoner was injured in an accident,
slipping on a cart left in a doorway. He was referred to an orthopedic clinic
outside the prison. Prior to being transported there, a prison employee
allegedly required him to put on a jumpsuit, despite his protests that putting
his arms through the sleeves would cause him severe pain. Two employees also
allegedly forced him to wear a "black box" mechanical restraint
device despite his complaints about the resulting pain. He also claimed that a
doctor's direction that his left elbow be put into a posterior splint for two
weeks was not followed at the prison because of limitations in staffing and
facilities. He was allegedly unable to feed or bathe himself for several weeks,
and prison employees failed to make alternative arrangements for him. He filed
a federal civil rights lawsuit against the private company that ran the prison
under a contract with the federal Bureau of Prisons, as well as a number of
their employees, claiming violation of his constitutional rights. Overturning
dismissal of the lawsuit, a federal appeals court ruled that the company's
employees acted under color of federal law for purposes of a civil rights
lawsuit. Pollard v. GEO Group, Inc., #07-16112, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 11496 (9th
Cir.).
Upholding a trial court's appointment of a
receiver in a class action lawsuit claiming widespread deficiencies in prison
medical care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), a federal appeals court ruled that the Prison Litigation
Reform Act did not eliminate the trial court's jurisdiction to appoint a
receiver in prison conditions litigation, and that, in this case, the trial
court properly found that the appointment of such a receiver was the
"least intrusive means" of remedying the problem. Plata v.
Schwarzenegger, #09-15864, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 8969 (9th Cir.).
A jail received a pretrial detainee who was known
to be diabetic and a schizophrenic. After his arrival, he ate little, felt ill,
had high blood sugar, had rapid breathing, was unsteady on his feet, and had a
fever. He was transferred to a hospital after thirteen days, and doctors there
found that he had pneumonia and improperly functioning kidneys. Five days
later, he died. In a lawsuit by his estate against a hospital, jail officers,
licensed practical nurses, and a nurse practitioner, the defendants were not
entitled to qualified immunity, as there were genuine issues of material fact
as to whether they were deliberately indifferent towards the detainee's health.
A reasonable jury could find that the jail officers should have realized that
he needed immediate medical care, and that medical personnel gave him
"blatantly inappropriate" treatment. Estate of Gee v. Johnson,
#09-1895, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 3115 (Unpub. 7th Cir.),
A prisoner's purported "new" evidence
concerning the alleged deliberate indifference of medical staff and prison
administrators to his need for surgery for his hernia, far from bolstering his
claim, indicated that he was, in fact, provided with the surgery once his
hernia became difficult to reduce. There was no evidence that his condition was
ignored or that doctors waited an unreasonably long time to opt to approve the
surgery. Chadwick v. Walker, #09-3175, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 3111 (Unpub. 7th
Cir.).
A Pennsylvania prisoner serving a life sentence
began a hunger strike. Prison officials sought and obtained a court order
mandating that he be involuntarily examined and subjected to invasive
diagnostic tests, as well as given medical treatment including nutrition and
hydration to preserve his life and health. Because the correctional officials
failed, however, to present evidence that the prisoner's life was in imminent
danger, the court upheld the portions of the order concerning diagnostic tests
and examination, but vacated portions of the order concerning forced nutrition
and hydration. Hill v. Dept. of Corrections, #1331 C.D. 2009, 2010 Pa. Commw.
Lexis 181.
A pretrial detainee's claims concerning his
allegedly inadequate medical treatment were properly rejected when he failed to
show a link between any actions of the defendants and the alleged deficiencies
in his treatment, instead merely arguing that the defendants should be held
liable because the defendants' jobs made them responsible for seeing that
detainees have adequate medical care. Thomas v. Guffey, #09-2133, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 4401 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A New York prisoner contended that his
confinement under a tuberculosis hold policy based on his refusal to submit to
TB testing violated his right to religious freedom and that he was entitled to
a religious exemption from the policy. The court found that it had not been
clearly established that the policy was not reasonably related to a legitimate
penological interest in preventing the spread of disease or that it was not the
least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Defendant employees were
therefore entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found no violation of
the prisoner's Eighth Amendment or due process rights in placing him in TB hold
confinement. Redd v. Wright, #06-4315, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4898 (2nd Cir.).
Rejecting claims that two deputies at a county
jail were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of a pregnant detainee
who had used crack cocaine daily, the federal appeals court noted that the
deputies knew that the detainee had been seen by a nurse at the jail who
determined that her medical need was "not an emergency." The detainee
later suffered a miscarriage, but the deputies were entitled to rely on the
nurse's medical expertise in failing to take additional measures. The plaintiff
failed to show that the deputies disregarded the risk to the health of her
fetus with conduct that was more than gross negligence. Townsend v. Jefferson
Cty., #08-15583, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6500 (11th Cir.).
A trial court ruled that a reasonable jury might
be able to find that a sergeant had knowingly disregarded a light duty
restriction on an inmate in ordering him to unload a truck despite his possible
carpal tunnel syndrome. Despite this, the defendant sergeant was entitled to
summary judgment because of the lack of evidence that unloading the truck
actually caused the inmate harm or future aggravation of his condition. The inmate,
to prevail, needed medical evidence concerning what the impact of lifting over
twenty pounds was, and his own unqualified opinion, and the mere statement that
his hands were more painful after doing the lifting was insufficient. Hoeft v.
Harrop, #09-3488, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4627 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A federal prisoner claimed that medical tests
showed that his liver was being damaged by Hepatitis C, and that a prison
clinical director recommended medication treatment but that the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) Director improperly refused to approve such treatment, acting with
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. A federal appeals court
ruled that these allegations, if true, stated a claim against the Director. As
to claims that the clinical director failed to take needed steps to prevent the
delay and denial of treatment, the inmate was entitled to a chance to more
specifically state what he was asserting the clinical director should have
done. Arocho v. Nafziger, #09-1095, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4200 (Unpub. 10th
Cir.).
A female prisoner in California resided in a
community-based correctional facility, along with her infant daughter. She
filed a lawsuit against the state, the private company operating the facility,
and various employees of the other defendants for physical injuries her
daughter allegedly suffered and her own emotional distress from the defendants'
alleged failure to provide medical treatment for the child's serious
respiratory infection. The state and state employees were entitled to immunity
from liability for negligence and negligent and intentional infliction of
emotional distress concerning the prisoner under a state statute. Her daughter,
however, was not a prisoner, so no such immunity was available on claims against
the state and state employees concerning her injuries. The private company and
its employees were not entitled to governmental immunity. Lawson v. Sup. Ct.,
#D055396, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 14 (Cal. App.).
A prisoner who hurt his back while incarcerated
claimed that an 18-month delay in ordering surgery constituted deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. A federal appeals court disagreed,
noting that the defendants actively pursued an "involved" course of
treatment that included pain medication, various tests, and, ultimately, the
provided surgery. Pursuing less invasive treatments at first, as well as trying
to transfer the prisoner to a better equipped facility were not indications of
deliberate indifference. Moore v. Guzman, #08-16420, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 1370
(Unpub. 11th Cir.).
While taking a shower at a county detention
center approximately four and a half hours after his arrest, a 16-year-old male
collapsed into unconsciousness. He was immediately given medical attention, and
taken to a hospital, but died ten days later from the impact of acute cocaine
intoxication. Rejecting claims of deliberate indifference, the court found no
evidence that either the arresting or processing officers had any reason to be
aware of the decedent's need for medical attention prior to his collapse. Brown
v. Middleton, #08-1937, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 931 (Unpub. 4th Cir.).
There was insufficient evidence on which to base
a claim that a doctor had provided a prisoner with inadequate medical care. The
doctor did see and treat the prisoner after he suffered a fall and complained
about back pain. The failure, at that time, to order an MRI test did not rise
to the level of deliberate indifference. While the prisoner claimed that the
doctor improperly cancelled his physical therapy appointments after only one
visit, records showed that it was the prisoner's own refusal to attend three
other appointments that led to the therapy sessions being cancelled. As for an
alleged 10-month delay in undergoing a liver biopsy, a medical assistant, who
believed that the prisoner did not meet established criteria for the procedure,
did not act with deliberate indifference. This action was also based, in part,
by conflicting opinions from consulting physicians as to what the proper course
of treatment was. The court also rejected a retaliation claim, as there was no
connection shown between the prisoner filing a grievance and the delay in
ordering the biopsy. Victor v. Milicevic, #08-1772, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 990
(Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
Further proceedings were required to determine
whether a nurse acted with deliberate indifference in allegedly refusing to see
the plaintiff prisoner, despite being aware of her symptoms that were
consistent with serious heart problems. The trial court also erred in refusing
to consider the plaintiff's offered expert witness testimony regarding the
relationship between her vomiting and her heart condition. Gayton v. McCoy,
#08-2187, 593 F.3d 610(7th Cir. 2010).
After a prisoner suffered from diarrhea and
vomiting, correctional officers purportedly decided that she was undergoing
alcohol or drug withdrawal. A clinician and nurse, however, decided that she
was suffering medical distress and should be transferred to the medical unit
for further evaluation. She later died while on a stretcher in the medical
unit's hallway. The inmate's estate could proceed with deliberate indifference
claims against the clinician, as the failure to take additional steps to aid
her might constitute inadequate medical care. State law medical malpractice
claims, however, were properly dismissed since a state medical malpractice
tribunal ruled that there was no malpractice, and the plaintiff failed to post
a bond as required by Massachusetts law to challenge that finding. Brace v.
Massachusetts, #08-CV-30184, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 116068 (D. Mass.).
The existence of many filed inmate grievances
over allegedly inadequate medical care at a federal prison was an adequate
basis for supervisory liability claims by a prisoner there against a former
warden, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) director, and a regional BOP director.
These grievances, assumed to be true for purposes of a motion to dismiss, could
potentially show that these defendants were on notice of a rampant problem at
the prison concerning prisoner medical care, yet failed to take necessary
corrective action. The plaintiff prisoner, who fell and badly injured his
finger while mopping a floor, claimed that he was given inadequate medical care
for his injuries. Scott v. Vasquez, #CV 208-145, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 110718
(S.D. Ga.).
A prisoner adequately alleged facts from which an
inference of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs would be
made. He asserted that, despite his complaints of continuing severe pain to two
nurses, they provided him with no examination or treatment and merely put him
on the sick call list for the next day, and that one nurse forced him to crawl
to a wheelchair after he screamed in pain for longer than three hours. He
further claimed that after the removal of his appendix, when he started
bleeding from his penis, a doctor told an assistant to place him in a room for
the night, and that correctional personnel instructed him to dispose of the
blood he kept gushing, in order to hide his condition. Given these assertions,
the appeals court overturned the dismissal of the prisoner's lawsuit. Pearson
v. Prison Health Service, #09-2766, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 22760 (Unpub. 3rd
Cir.).
A prisoner was found guilty of self-mutilation,
fraud, and bribery in a disciplinary hearing, based on evidence that he and
another prisoner had staged their fight. He then filed a lawsuit against a
number of correctional officers, asserting that they failed to protect him from
assault, provided him with inadequate medical attention for his injuries, and
created an atmosphere where prisoners could be deprived of due process. Since
the prisoner had staged a "phony" fight, his failure to protect claim
lacked merit, and success on that claim would imply the invalidity of his
disciplinary conviction, which had not been set aside. He also failed to show
that he really needed any medical treatment, as he did not suffer serious
injuries. His other claims were also without merit. Jackson v. Mizzel, #09-30667,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 1258 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner transported by van to a hospital for
the removal of his appendix claimed that medical personnel at a correctional
facility were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs the previous
day, when he began to experience abdominal pain and nausea. The claim was
rejected. When he first complained, he was allowed to visit the medical unit,
interviewed by a nurse, and a supervising physician was consulted by phone,
following which he was given over-the-counter medication. The prisoner failed
to name the nurse or nurses who he claimed subjected him to mistreatment or to
present evidence that they deviated from an applicable standard of care in his
situation. Grassi v. Corrections Corporation of America, #09-1042, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 26563 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to establish that the refusal to
provide him with a hearing aid to relieve his tinnitus constituted deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. He received "numerous
treatments" for ear infections in his left ear, and an audiological exam
showed that his hearing was functional in both ears despite his condition of
tinnitus, so that he was not eligible to receive a hearing aid. A medical
practice manager could not himself diagnose the prisoner's medical needs, and
fulfilled his duties, in light of the test results, by reviewing the medical
records and explaining to the inmate how policies applied to him based on those
records. Cooper v. Johnson, #09-40223, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26139 (Unpub.5th
Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show deliberate indifference
or even negligence or malpractice by doctors in treating his "jock
itch." He received treatment for his complaints, and the fact that he
disagreed with the course of treatment and claimed that it was not effective
did not establish a violation of his rights. Simon v. Augustine, #06-CV-6496,
2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 101609 (W.D.N.Y.).
A prisoner asserted that another inmate shoved
him in the face during basketball games, punched him in the face, fracturing
his jaw, in the dining hall, and falsely accused him of being a child molester.
Rejecting his claims of failure to protect and inadequate medical care, the
appeals court found that there was no evidence that corrections officers or a
nurse knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. Any fear of harm
from the other inmate was not strong enough to prevent the plaintiff from
voluntarily playing in basketball games where the other inmate was present. As
for a defendant mental health counselor, there was no evidence that the
plaintiff had ever complained to him concerning any threats. As for the medical
care claims, the prisoner both failed to establish deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need and failed to exhaust his available administrative
remedies prior to filing suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Davis v.
Williams, #09-2602, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26637 (Unpub.3rd Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that jailers violated his rights
by not protecting him from attacks by other inmates, since they acted on his
requests for cell transfers based on his fears of threats to his safety.
Inadequate medical care claims were also rejected, since evidence showed that
jail medical staff responded "diligently" to all of his
"myriad" medical complaints. Krause v. Leonard, #09-40273, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 24387 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee arrived at a county jail and died
less than a week later from pneumococcal meningitis. In a federal civil rights
lawsuit, his mother claimed that deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs caused his death. A verdict of $4.3 million was upheld on appeal as it
applied to the county and its officers. Even after the detainee was found having
convulsions on the floor of his cell, he allegedly did not receive immediate
medical attention, and this was allegedly after he had been vomiting for days
without medical care, and was unable to walk on his own. The court did find,
however, that there was insufficient evidence to hold the county sheriff
liable. The jury found that three individual correctional officers acted with
deliberate disregard towards the detainee's medical needs, but no connection
was shown to the sheriff's policies and practices, including his alleged
understaffing of the jail. The county was still held liable, based on evidence
sufficient to show that it "had a widespread policy of disregarding
detainees’ medical requests." Thomas v. Cook County Sheriff's Dep't,
#08-2232, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26086 (7th Cir).
An inmate fell and was injured while trying to
climb into his top bunk. He sued, blaming his injuries on a doctor, a nurse,
and various prison officials for assigning him to a top bunk. The appeals court
upheld a ruling that the prisoner had failed to show that he had a serious
medical need for a lower bank. The doctor had found that the prisoner had no
difficulty standing or walking, despite a history of injury and surgery which
occurred twenty years before. Based on this, he did not meet the prison's
criteria for a lower bunk assignment. The real cause of his injury was the
collapse of the chair on which he was standing, resulting in an accidental
fall. Summary judgment for the defendants was upheld. Robbins v. Black, #08-6207,
2009 U.S. App. Lexis 24244 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
An alleged five-year delay in identifying a
prisoner's cancer was not the result of deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs, but simply based on an incorrect diagnosis by prison medical personnel.
This error was insufficient to support a constitutional claim. The court also
rejected claims based on an alleged subsequent delay of several months in
providing treatment, or alleged inadequate dental care. The prisoner, at most,
showed negligence, not a violation of civil rights. Fenlon v. Quarterman,
#08-40653, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23614 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
After a prisoner injured his left knee when he
fell while getting out of a shower, he was offered crutches and ibuprofen by a
doctor, but refused them. After a follow-up appointment, the doctor ordered
x-rays and a knee brace. He suffered additional knee injuries, and was
prescribed crutches, as well as being told that surgery would not solve his
knee problems. The prisoner failed to show inadequate medical care, since he
saw medical personnel when he requested, and was provided with treatment for
his knee problems. Additionally, his lawsuit named as defendants a medical
director and a number of prison officials who had nothing to do personally with
his medical treatment. Fails v. DeShields, #09-10404, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
23277 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
After a detainee testified against a member of the
Aryan Brotherhood of Texas (ABT), a white prison gang, he was allegedly
attacked by another ABT member when he was placed in the general jail
population as a pretrial detainee. After the attack, he was put into
administrative segregation for his safety. In his lawsuit against jail
officials over the attack, the detainee failed to show that the defendants knew
of a substantial risk that he would be attacked by ABT members, so he could not
show that they acted with deliberate indifference to his safety. He did,
however, state a valid claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs
after the attack, asserting that the defendants knew he suffered from
persistent pain, but delayed getting him under a doctor's care for a
significant period of time. His placement in administrative segregation was not
a violation of his rights, but done for his safety, and his placement in
solitary confinement did not violate his due process rights. Perez v. Anderson,
#08-10952, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23818 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
An African-American motorist stopped for
DUI was taken to a city jail based on a claim that there was a misdemeanor
warrant for his arrest. He claimed that, at the jail, officers physically
attacked him, causing him a spinal cord injury, and then dragged him into a
cell where he was left until a civilian jail employee complained about his condition.
A federal appeals court upheld the denial of summary judgment to the defendant
officers on claims of race discrimination, excessive force, and delayed medical
treatment, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that the reason for
the excessive use of force and delayed medical treatment was race. Harris v.
City of Circleville, #08-3252, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21641 (6th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he suffered injury from
excessive exposure to second hand tobacco smoke, including nausea, chest pains,
difficulty breathing, headaches, vomiting, and inability to eat, as well as a
mild stroke or heart attack, blurred vision in his left eye, impaired ability
to walk, numbness of his left side, and extreme back pain. He claimed to have
been housed with prisoners who smoked in his cell, and that 35 inmates who
smoked were housed in the area of his cell. He further asserted that existing
no smoking rules were not enforced. The trial court found a genuine issue of
fact as to whether the warden and an assistant supervisor responded in an
adequate way to the plaintiff's verbal and written pleas that they enforce
existing smoking prohibitions. These defendants' motions for summary judgment
were denied on claims related to smoking, but granted on claims concerning
alleged inadequate medical care, since the prisoner could not show that they
were personally involved in any decisions concerning his medical care. Adams v.
Banks, #5:08cv154, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90189 (S.D. Miss.).
Prison medical personnel did not act with
deliberate indifference in delaying ordering Amitriptyline pain medication
until first verifying his condition of peripheral neuropathy in his lower
extremities and the prescription with his neurologist. There was also no
evidence that doctors were aware of any harm caused by a delay in an eye
appointment. A prison grievance officer was entitled to rely on the opinions of
medical personnel in responding to the prisoner's grievance regarding his
medical treatment. Williams v. Guzman, #08-2167, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21913
(Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Evidence presented could support the finding that
a supervisor learned that a detainee, who subsequently suffered a fatal heart
attack, was complaining of chest pains. While it may have initially been
reasonable to discount this, given a jail employee's statement that the
detainee's pain was on the wrong side of his chest for a heart attack, it soon
became obvious that the detainee needed immediate medical attention. The
supervisor received notification that he was pale, clutching his chest, and
that other prisoners were saying that he was having a heart attack. The
supervisor, in moving him to an observation cell, took a proper first step, but
then allegedly failed to try to communicate with him after the move, merely
looking at him from time to time through her window to see if he was still
alive. She was not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit claiming
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Weatherford v. Taylor,
#09-7018, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21812 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A prisoner who suffered from an enlarged prostate
condition and chronic blood clotting in his leg failed to show that a prison
doctor acted with deliberate indifference. The doctor prescribed medication and
monitoring, ordered a consultation with a urologist, ordered a biopsy, and
ultimately had him taken to a hospital where he was diagnosed with renal
failure and sepsis. Ultimately, he underwent prostate reduction surgery. The
evidence showed an exercise of medical judgment in treating and monitoring the
prisoner. Any evidence showing a difference in medical opinion from another
doctor or potential errors in medical judgment might indicate, at worst, gross
negligence, which was insufficient for a constitutional claim of deliberate
indifference. Fischer v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, #08-16134, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 21079 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
A detainee's temporary segregation in a medical
unit was intended as part of the treatment of his eye infection, and to prevent
the spreading of the infection, rather than as punishment. There was no
evidence of any link between the prisoner filing grievances about the purported
delay in treatment for his eye infection and any alleged adverse action taken
against him by correctional employees, such as use of abusive language,
threats, or physical abuse. Bendy v. Ocean County Jail, #07-1421, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 16259 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
In an inmate's lawsuit over alleged inadequate
medical treatment for his chronic ear problems, the court found that earplugs
were prescribed by a doctor, and that there was no evidence that the
confiscation of the earplugs was carried out for any legitimate medical or
security reasons. The inmate suffered adverse consequences as a result. Claims
as to the first confiscation of the earplugs were dismissed because of his
failure to file a grievance concerning it, but the plaintiff could go forward
with his claims concerning a subsequent confiscation, Jackson v. Carroll,
#03-1031, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68390 (D. Del.).
An inmate suffering from hepatitis claimed that
he did not receive a needed liver biopsy or treatment for hepatitis C with
either interferon or ribavirin. The court found that no medical providers
believed that either a liver biopsy or treatment with interferon or ribavirin
was necessary, that the inmate's liver function was within normal limits, and
that summary judgment should be awarded to the defendants. Palmer v. Carroll,
#06-576, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69292 (D. Del.).
A Wisconsin prisoner who began spitting up blood
and experiencing abdominal pain claimed that he suffered severe pain from an
improperly inserted IV line and the failure of ambulance personnel and hospital
personnel to adequately respond to his complaints. A federal appeals court
noted that federal civil rights liability may be imposed on private parties
when they contract with government to provide medical services to inmates. The
court ordered that discovery be conducted to discover the names of the personnel
the inmate claimed acted with deliberate indifference towards his serious
medical needs. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Service, #06-4260, 577 F.3d 816
(7th Cir. 2009).
A prisoner who suffered from a blood clot in his
left eye failed to assert a viable disability discrimination claim since the
record showed that he was provided with meaningful access to prison programs
and facilities. The prisoner also failed to show that the manager of a prison
housing unit acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Indeed, there was no admissible evidence even showing that the defendant was
aware of his blood clot. Mason v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.,
#.07-2814, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 6068 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed to have suffered injuries from
falling on a broken grate cover while working in a prison kitchen. He claimed
that prison officials wrongfully refused to fix the grate cover, refused to
bring his meals to his cells to accommodate him after he was injured, and interfered
with his right of access to the courts when they refused to prepare a written
report concerning the incident. He also claimed that his medication was
improperly delayed. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the
defendants, finding that the claim about the grate was a claim for negligence
that could not support a federal civil rights claim, that the refusal to bring
the prisoner's meals to his cell was consistent with his doctor's
recommendations, that he failed to show how the absence of a written incident
report prevented him from litigating over what happened, and that any claim
concerning his medical treated merely showed disagreement over the proper
course of treatment to be followed, rather than showing deliberate
indifference. Gause v. Diguglielmo, #09-1454, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15743
(Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
The "continuing violation" doctrine applies to Eighth
Amendment claims of medical indifference brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 when
a prisoner shows an ongoing policy of deliberate indifference to his or her
serious medical needs and "some acts in furtherance of the policy within
the relevant statute of limitations period." Further proceedings
were required to consider whether that doctrine also applied to the prisoner's
federal disability discrimination claims. The case involves a prisoner
suffering from right arm paralysis and limited use of his left arm. He claimed
that, despite recommendations from a number of doctors, he was not provided
with assistance with "activities of daily living, transferred to
specialized infirmary housing, or provided with needed treatments." Shomo
v. City of New York, #07-1208, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 18001 (2nd Cir.).
While a prisoner claimed that the defendant
officers denied him medical treatment while he was in segregation, there was no
evidence showing that the officers were even assigned to the segregation unit
during the time period in question, so that they were entitled to summary
judgment. Further, a jury verdict in favor of the officers on an excessive
force claim meant that there had been no attack on him, so that there could not
have been a denial of medical care on the basis that the prisoner claimed.
Teague v. Mayo, #07-1155, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 1544 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he had been subjected to
deliberate indifference because he did not receive surgical treatment for a
knee injury; there was no evidence that any medical personnel recommended
surgery, and the prisoner did receive treatment, including physical therapy and
a knee brace. The treatment provided was "frequent," and included an
MRI, and an assessment of his problems by a team of doctors, including an
orthopedic specialist. There was no proof of deliberate indifference. Serrano
v. Folino, #08-2107, U.S. App. Lexis 16655 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Because of disputed facts concerning whether a
lieutenant provided the plaintiff inmate with prescribed pain medication, the
prisoner could proceed with his civil rights claim against him. He could also
proceed on his claims against a prison nurse, based on his allegation that his
daily requests for medical attention for pain and swelling in his foot went
unheeded. Chapman v. Johnson, #08-60475, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17427 (Unpub. 5th
Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that charging him $10
for medical services and medications constituted cruel and unusual punishment,
since he did not alleged that he was denied medical treatment because of lack
of ability to pay. The prison's policies did not limit the providing of such
services to those able to pay. Cannon v. Mason, #08-7117, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
17655 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that charging him $10
for medical services and medications constituted cruel and unusual punishment,
since he did not alleged that he was denied medical treatment because of lack
of ability to pay. The prison's policies did not limit the providing of such
services to those able to pay. Cannon v. Mason, #08-7117, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
17655 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
When an inmate failed to inform prison employees
that his cellmate had allegedly made threats against him, they could not be
held liable for failure to prevent the ensuing attack. The prisoner also failed
to show deliberate indifference to his resulting injuries, when he was provided
with cool compresses and pain medication, as well as seen by a nurses three
hours after the assault, and by a doctor who provided additional treatment the
following morning. Whaley v. Erickson, #08-1628, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16589 (Unpub.
7th Cir.).
A federal appeals court upheld a jury's verdict
for defendant prison physicians and a prison health provider on Eighth
Amendment claims arising from a prisoner's treatment for the Hepatitis C Virus
(HCV), but ordered clarification on why the trial court had dismissed the
prisoner's state medical negligence claim, which required a lower standard of
proof than his federal constitutional claim. Doe v. N.J. Dept. of Corrections,
#07-3189, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15130 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner contended that prison doctors
misdiagnosed a thyroid mass and improperly provided overly-invasive treatment
(surgery) for what turned out to be a non-malignant, benign cyst. The doctors
were properly granted summary judgment on an Eighth Amendment claim, as they
were not shown to have acted with a "culpable state of mind"
amounting to deliberate indifference to the prisoner's serious medical needs,.
even if the misdiagnosis was allegedly medical malpractice. Parker v.
Gosmanova, #08-6273, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 14870 (10th Cir.).
After a prisoner died of cryptococcal meningitis,
an autopsy showed that he suffered from an undiagnosed case of HIV/AIDS that
rendered him susceptible to the disease that killed him. Summary judgment was
upheld for defendant state correctional officials who were not shown to have
had any reason to know or believe that the prison medical staff was not
adequately treating the prisoner. Discovery in the case was properly limited to
non-privileged documents concerning the allocation of resources, medical costs,
and documents mentioning the deceased prisoner. The plaintiff's request for
26,000 documents that the Delaware Department of Corrections had furnished to
the U.S. Department of Justice during a federal investigation of state prison
conditions was overbroad. Estate of Chance v. First Correctional Medical, Inc.,
#08-4220, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13417 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
While the plaintiff prisoner established that he
objectively had serious medical needs, he failed to show that the defendants
acted subjectively with deliberate indifference when they purportedly delayed
in diagnosing and treating his injured knee, treated him as mentally unstable,
and failed to provide proper medication for high blood pressure. He failed to
show more than mere negligence, which is inadequate to establish federal civil
rights violations. Barnes v. Martin County Sheriff's Dept., #08-10785, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 12042 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
A prisoner's testimony appeared to indicate that his
allegations that prison personnel deliberately denied treatment for his back
condition actually amounted to a mere disagreement over the proper treatment
under the circumstances. Rather than being deliberately indifferent towards the
prisoner's pain, the defendants, at worst, were rude and "overly
suspicious" as to whether the prisoner was overstating the pain he felt
and engaging in drug-seeking behavior. If so, this did not rise to the level of
a violation of constitutional rights. There was treatment provided, and there
was a medical basis for its direction. Spruill v. Gillis, #07-3286, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 12941 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner who suffered from hepatitis, herpes
virus, and genital warts failed to show that prison non-medical personnel, such
as a warden and members of a prison board had any actual knowledge or even a
reason to believe that he was being mistreated. The prisoner also failed to
show that three named doctors were personally involved in the mistreatment he
claimed occurred. Additionally, claims based on incidents occurring longer than
two years before were time barred, and the prisoner was not entitled to the
extension of the applicable statute of limitations either on the basis that he
was incarcerated, or that certain personnel supposedly refused to give their
names. Despite this, the prisoner knew of the alleged misconduct at the time he
said it occurred, and could have sued at the time. Smith v. Lycoming County,
#07-3634, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12972 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner merely disagreed with prison personnel
concerning the proper course of treatment for a back injury he suffered when a
prison table collapsed, and did not show that anyone acted with deliberate
indifference towards his serious medical needs. Non-medical personnel, the
court also noted, could not be held liable simply on the basis of their role as
supervisors. Claims of negligence the prisoner asserted against prison
maintenance supervisors were not sufficient to constitute a violation of constitutional
rights. Innis v. Wilson, #08-4909, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12424 (Unpub. 3rd
Cir.).
While a prisoner claimed that he was provided
with inadequate treatment for his diagnosed chronic pain syndrome, correctional
officials stated that he misrepresented that he was HIV positive and had an
ulcer. His medical records also showed drug-seeking behavior and indicated that
he had received medical treatment, including referral to specialists and
medication, and that the prisoner himself requested being put on full activity
status. Evidence contained in a videotape showed that he was
"embellishing" his pain and malingering. Additionally, considering
that tests showed that the prisoner was not HIV-positive, no jury could
reasonably find that doctors acted with deliberate indifference in canceling
HIV-related medications and accommodations. Fitzgerald v. Greer, #08-2627, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 9904 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
In a federal prisoner's medical malpractice
lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a doctor's letter submitted did not
meet the court's order that the prisoner submit a certificate of medical merit
to comply with Pennsylvania law. The doctor's letter concerning the prisoner's
heart condition did not state that the treatment provided fell outside the
scope of acceptable professional standards and caused harm, and only stated
that the case merited taking a "closer" look. The lawsuit was
dismissed. Booker v. U.S.A., #1:CV-07-1960, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 27152 (M.D.
Pa.).
Overturning summary judgment for federal prison
officials in a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a federal appeals
court noted that a severe asthma attack can be life-threatening like a heart
attack, so that further proceedings were required on the prisoner's claim that
officials were negligent when he had an asthma attack. There were genuine
issues of fact as to whether the asthma attack was severe enough to show
physical injuries as required by 28 U.S.C.S. § 1346(b)(2) and 42 U.S.C.S. §
1997e(e) for recovery for negligently caused emotional injuries. Perez v.
U.S.A., #08-2807, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11071 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Proof that an inmate had a "raspy"
voice was insufficient to show that he had a disability for purposes of a
disability discrimination claim. While his "raspy" voice could impact
the volume of his speech, there was no indication that he was unable to
articulate his words, to communicate with others, or to make himself
understood. The court also rejected his claim that prison employees were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. The defendants attempted to
accommodate his need to avoid environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and the
prisoner failed to show any intentional refusal to address the issue. Pritchett
v. Ellers, #08-1669, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9381 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
While the alleged denial of medical treatment for
gas did not involve a serious medical condition, a prisoner's argument that
lack of treatment for dry skin and eczema resulted in skin that cracked and
bled did show possible deliberate indifference to a serious problem. The trial
court improperly analyzed a claim concerning the unauthorized charging of
co-payments for medications under the Eighth Amendment instead of the
Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, requiring further proceedings.
McKeithan v. Beard, #08-1746, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7308 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner's allegation that correctional
officials knowingly refused to provide treatment or to investigate his request
for treatment, specifically ophthalmic evaluation and cataract surgery, failed
to establish a claim for disability discrimination. His argument that an
allegedly resulting disability was the loss of vision in his right eye did not
show that the defendants denied him care on the basis of a disability. The
prisoner also failed to show that the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs, or that they acted merely in order
to save the cost of treatment, as opposed to acting on a medical finding concerning
the stability of his eye condition. Stevenson v. Pramstaller, #07-cv-14040,
2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25495 (E.D. Mich.).
Prisoner's complaint concerning the confiscation
of his electric razor failed to establish a violation of due process, his right
to privacy, the Fourth Amendment, or deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. He failed to allege any facts about the supposed seriousness of
his skin condition or why an electric razor was medically needed in light of
that condition. There were adequate post-deprivation remedies for the loss of
property under prison grievance and internal review procedures. Barr v. Knauer,
#08-3660, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7766 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that he was, at one time, left
sitting in his own waste, while "offensive," did not, by itself, show
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Additionally, although a
sergeant did not observe any visible injury on the prisoner, he still honored
the prisoner's request to call the infirmary, which told the sergeant that the
prisoner should submit a sick call slip in order to be seen. The prisoner
failed to show that he suffered from a serious medical condition at the time.
Clark v. Md. Dept. of Public Safety and Correctional Services, #08-7918, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 5224 (Unpub. 4th Cir.).
Board of county commissioners was not liable for
the death of a prisoner from a heart attack after his complaints of left arm
numbness and chest pains were regarded as false and his request for medical
attention was allegedly ignored. Neither the board nor any of the individual
commissioners were personally involved in this treatment of the prisoner, and
there was no evidence that they had any responsibility for hiring or
supervising jail employees or running the jail. Federal claims against the
sheriff could proceed. Estate of Weatherford v. Muskogee County, #CIV-08-088,
2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9886 (E.D. Ok.).
Prisoner, in making a "bare allegation"
that a medical services company's custom or policy resulted in progressive
detachment of his retina, degeneration, and irreparable damage to his vision,
failed to properly establish a federal civil rights claim against the company.
There was also no showing that a defendant correctional official had been aware
that the prisoner had a serious medical need. The prisoner had a right,
however, to file an amended complaint naming other defendants, and could do so
without the court's permission so long as the complaint had not yet been
answered. Broyles v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., #08-1638, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 5494 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
Prison medical personnel did not act with
deliberate indifference to an inmate's back injury. They saw him immediately
after his fall, and saw him subsequently when he complained of continuing pain,
providing medication. Their failure to see him later, during the next six
months, was due to the inmate's own failure to attend required sick calls,
which was also the basis for the denial of his request for a new mattress, which
only a doctor at sick call could order. Lowe v. Kaplan, No. 08-1622, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 2672 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Any delay in treatment of a sty under a
prisoner's left eye did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. There was no evidence that medical personnel knew that
the inmate's condition posed a substantial risk to his health. The prisoner
claimed that the delay caused the sty to grow, blurring his vision, and
requiring multiple surgeries. Slater v. Greenwood, No. 08-3042, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 2223 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
The failure on a non-medical staff member to take
action concerning a prisoner's pre-existing eye condition (a pinhole in the
retina of his left eye) did not amount to deliberate indifference but the
plaintiff prisoner was entitled to carry out further discovery concerning
whether the head of the prison medical unit had knowledge of his complaints but
failed to take necessary action. Burks v. Raemish, No. 07-3041, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 2640 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Prison nurse was not entitled to qualified
immunity in prisoner's lawsuit alleging deliberate indifference to his
suffering from heat exhaustion. After she told him to drink fluids, lie down,
and rest, his condition allegedly became worse, and he became quadriplegic. If
the facts were as the prisoner claimed, including that the nurse delayed
examining the prisoner for hours after being informed of his condition, it
could be concluded that she knew that serious health risks accompanied
excessive heat, dehydration, and heat stroke, but acted with deliberate
indifference. Dominguez v. Correctional Med. Servs., No. 08-1212, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 2895 (6th Cir.).
Inmate failed to establish a claim for inadequate
medical treatment, as he was examined by a number of mental health providers
while incarcerated, as well as being provided with treatment for a number of
physical ailments. His medical needs were not "serious," he suffered
no long-term effects from any delay in treatment, and he never complained about
his treatment while at the prison. Tsakonas v. Cicchi, No. 07-4115, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 1856 (3rd Cir.).
A prisoner with diabetic osteomyelitis could
proceed with his claim that a physician's assistant had violated his Eighth
Amendment rights by failing to take appropriate action in response to obvious
signs of infection in his right foot that was methicillin resistant
staphylococcus aureus, requiring surgery. The defendant allegedly merely told
him to soak his foot. Recovery of punitive damages, however, was barred under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 3626(a)(1)(A),
(g)(7). Mitchell v. McDonell, Case No. 3:06-180, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 106148
(W.D. Pa.).
Prisoner with cystic fibrosis was entitled to
injunctive relief requiring him to be fully evaluated at a medical center
accredited by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. He claimed that prison officials
and employees acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
by confiscating a "flutter valve" device which he needed to use every
day to clear his airways (contending that it could be used as a weapon), and
that a doctor improperly substituted generic enzymes for brand-name pancreatic
enzymes. The prisoner presented a doctor's testimony that his current treatment
departed from acceptable medical practices. Farnam v. Walker, No.08-CV-3001,
2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2781 (C.D. Ill.).
While the prisoner believed that a different
course of treatment would have been preferable for his foot injuries and for
the urinary problems he developed after surgery on his foot, he failed to
present evidence that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs, and the medical records presented refuted any such
claim. Latham v. U.S., No. 07-4135, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 836 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Even though the treatment provided to a female
inmate concluded with her death, there was no indication of deliberate
indifference to her serious medical needs. She was seen in the infirmary
numerous times, provided with various prescription medications, and examined by
medical professionals, as well as being given a special diet, being excused
from working, and told to stay in bed. While it may have constituted poor
medical judgment not to have conducted additional medical tests on her, there
was no evidence that there was a known excessive risk to her health that was
ignored. Bennett v. State of Louisiana, No. 07-31189, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 853
(Unpub. 5th Cir.).
The possibility of claims for medical negligence
under 42 U.S.C. Sec 233(a) of the Federal Tort Claims Act does not bar the
pursuing of federal civil rights claims for deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs of prisoners, so that such a claim against employees and officers
of the Public Health Service arising out of the death of a prisoner from
allegedly repeatedly untreated penile cancer should not be dismissed. Castaneda
v. Henneford, No. 08-55684, 546 F.3d 682 (9th. Cir. 2008).
No evidence showed that deputies at a county
courthouse knew that a detainee had a heart condition or faced a substantial
risk of having a heart attack, so they were not liable under the Eighth
Amendment for allegedly depriving him of his heart medication. The fact that
they took nitroglycerin tablets from him when he was detained did not show that
they had knowledge of his condition, since there was no evidence that they read
the medicine label at that time. Shenk v. Cattaraugus County, No. 07-4814, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 167 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
Prisoner could pursue a claim for inadequate
medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment as a habeas corpus claim that
she was in custody in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and was not limited
to filing her claim as a federal civil rights lawsuit. Ilina v. Zickefoose,
Civil No. 3:07cv1490, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 105357 (D. Conn.).
Further proceedings were ordered on a prisoner's
claim that a county jail's policy denying the use of crutches in certain areas
of the jail violated his rights after he was transferred to the facility with a
broken ankle. The trial judge properly found that the plaintiff would not be a
proper representative of other injured inmates for purposes of a class action,
since he was no longer confined at the jail, and it was speculative to think
that he would both be returned to the jail and again be in need of the use of
crutches at that time. Arreola v. Godinez, No. 07-1700, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
21502 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner's appeal of summary judgment
against his claims for inadequate medical treatment was rejected when he failed
to object to a magistrate's recommendations and findings. This amounted to
waiving his right to appeal either factual or legal rulings of the trial court.
Duffield v. Jackson, No. 08-6002, 545 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2008).
A Texas prisoner claimed that he had pseudofolliculitis
barbae (PFB), a medical condition on the basis of which he was issued a clipper
shave pass (CSP) which constituted permission not to shave and to maintain a
1/4" beard. He further claimed that prison employees improperly threatened
him with disciplinary action for failing to shave, imposed discipline on him on
that basis, and declined to renew his CSP in retaliation for his complaints.
These claims were all rejected, as the record indicated that the discipline was
imposed for failing to maintain a 1/4" beard, not for failure to be
clean-shaven. He also failed to show that his medical condition was serious and
posed a risk of substantial harm, or that he was subjected to retaliation.
James v. Ramirez, No. 07-50674, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 83 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prison official could not be found to
have acted with deliberate indifference to a prisoner's medical needs
concerning a stair restriction when his actions were completely in compliance
with the medical restriction imposed. If the prisoner was not satisfied with
the restriction imposed, he should have asked medical personnel to restate it
in a manner that would make it clear that he should not be made to climb the
stairs to a dining hall on the second floor. Worrell v. Bruce, No. 08-3049,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 22202 (10th Cir.).
A prisoner who alleged that prison medical personnel
acted with deliberate indifference to his hip and lower back pain and to an ear
problem failed to timely object to a magistrate judge's report recommending the
rejection of his claims, properly resulting in the dismissal of some claims and
summary judgment for the defendants on others. Duffield v. Jackson, No. 08-6002,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 23553 (10th Cir.).
An undisputed affidavit by the medical director
of the facility at which the plaintiff inmate was confined indicated that his
medical treatment had met acceptable standards, despite his argument that
employees ignored him when he complained of chest pain. The prisoner failed to
submit an affidavit of his own or any response to the defendant's motion for
summary judgment. Price v. Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, Case No.
2007-06543, 2008 Ohio Misc. Lexis 248 (Oh. Ct. of Claims).
Prisoner's allegation that guards, for two weeks,
without any explanation, rejected his requests for "basic" cleaning
supplies, despite cell conditions that included human waste, filth, and a heavy
infestation of roaches, stated a viable Eighth Amendment claim, as did his
contention that he was not provided with more than a thin blanket when his
unheated cell was exposed to "frigid" air in November. A claim for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, however, was not viable,
since the symptoms he described amounted to a "common cold," which
did not indicate a serious medical need. Wheeler v. Walker, No. 08-1898, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 25434 (Unpub. 7th Cir.),
Inmate on dialysis could pursue claim for
deliberate indifference against prison dialysis provider, based on two
incidents in which he was told that a gauge on the dialysis machine was not
working properly and had not been fixed, resulting in him becoming ill after
his treatments. Four correctional administrators named as defendants, however,
were not shown to have been personally involved in these incidents, and could
not be held liable purely on the basis of vicarious liability. Adkins v.
Walker, No. 08 C 0815, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 85087 (N.D. Ill.).
County jail personnel did promptly consider an
inmate's request for medical treatment for a mental health problem, but delayed
in providing it, since it did not constitute an emergency. No evidence was
presented, however, to indicate that the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference, or that the treatment provided was inadequate, despite a delay in
providing a mental health related medication. Swift v. Tweddell, 05-CV-6233L,
2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82986 (W.D.N.Y.).
Evidence showed that the treatment that a
prisoner received for his hereditary skin condition and a staph infection,
contrary to his complaints, were adequate and were not grossly incompetent. The
fact that the prisoner, himself, would have preferred a different course of
treatment did not alter the result. Sheffield v. Edwards, Civil Action No.
9:07-3550, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 78645 (D.S.C.).
State prison officials sued in their individual
capacities were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The prisoner also
failed to show that three defendants did anything other than deny a grievance,
which did not suffice to show personal participation in the alleged violation
of his rights. Supervisory officials could not be held liable for problems with
the inmate's medical treatment solely on the basis of knowledge of his medical
grievances and history. Preble v. Milyard, Civil Action No. 07-cv-01361, 2008
U.S. District Lexis 81316 (D. Colo.).
A federal prisoner's claim, arising from his
alleged exposure to tuberculosis following the failure to follow Bureau of
Prisons policies, accrued, for purposes of the statute of limitations, at least
by September 23, 2002, when he was first informed of his exposure. When he
first filed his lawsuit, only 14 days remained on the two-year statute of
limitations under Texas law. After the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice
for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required, the
statute of limitations was tolled (extended) while the prisoner pursued such
remedies. His refiling of the lawsuit was time barred, however, when he failed
to re-file it until five months had elapsed after he finished exhausting
available administrative remedies. Starks v. Hollier, No. 07-41085, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 21111 (5th Cir.).
A detainee diagnosed after being released from
jail as having suffered a stroke failed to show that jail personnel had acted
with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He himself did not
dispute that his symptoms appeared to be consistent with mere intoxication.
Under these circumstances, jail personnel were not shown to have known that he
was in need of serious medical care. Further, he failed to show that any
alleged denial of care was caused by a county policy. Hines v. Henson, No.
07-40987, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 19430 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Prisoner allegedly denied non-mandatory medicine
for arthritis during a jail lockdown failed to show that individual defendants
acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, so that
individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Claims against state
agencies were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Mayes v. Issac, No.
07-51013, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20555 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Trial judge properly denied a motion to
dismiss by officers and employees of the Public Health Service in a civil
rights lawsuit for alleged repeated failures to treat a prisoner's penile
cancer, which was claimed to have caused his death. The Federal Tort Claims
Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 233(a) does not substitute for federal civil rights claims,
and, accordingly, the court rejected the argument that the defendants were
entitled to absolute immunity on the claims asserted. Castaneda v. Henneford,
No. 08-55684, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20812 (9th Cir.).
The alleged failure of a nurse to file an appeal
on a prisoner's behalf after he was denied knee surgery did not amount to
deliberate indifference. It was, at most, negligence, when the prisoner failed
to show that she knew of and disregarded a serious threat to his safety or
health. Further, her purported statement that the paperwork concerning this
just "slipped" through the cracks, even if true, only showed
negligence at most. The court found that the nurse was entitled to qualified
immunity on a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, in the absence of
any evidence that other similarly situated persons were treated in a different
manner. Sparks v. Rittenhouse, No. 07-1180, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 19947 (Unpub.
10th Cir.).
The chief physician and chief medical officer at
a prisoner were not shown to have acted with deliberate indifference to a
prisoner's leg pain. The prisoner was seen and treated numerous times, and the
defendants did refer him to a specialist and place his name on a referral list
to be sent to a clinic. Even if it was true that the prisoner was not seen by
the specialist over a course of several years, the defendants were not
responsible for the delay, and had not hindered the prisoner from seeing the
specialist, according to a magistrate's findings. Johnson v. Cox, No. CIV
S-06-2856, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 70321 (E.D. Cal.).
While a prisoner had received a recommendation
for consideration for a low-altitude housing assignment, his doctor had not
indicated in any way that such an assignment was medically necessary. Further,
there was no showing of deliberate indifference to his complaints about
exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, since the defendants did investigate his
complaints and try to provide an accommodation. The court found, however, that
these same allegations may have been enough for negligence claims against the
U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but that further proceedings
were required to determine whether negligence was shown by the facts. The
prisoner's claims concerning the denial of exercise was rejected, since he
refused opportunities to exercise that he was offered. Ajaj v. U.S.A., No.
07-1073, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 19786 (10th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to show that he provided a doctor
with notice that he was complaining of a broken toe with his sick call requests
or grievances as of April of 2005, and first complained of a broken toe during
a June 23, 2005 examination. At the time of the examination, further, the
doctor saw no swelling, deformity, redness, warmth, or tenderness and there
appeared to be a full range of motion, no mass felt, and no pain. Additionally,
even with this lack of symptoms, he ordered an x-ray of the toe, and therefore
did not act with deliberate indifference. Claims against a correctional officer
for allegedly failing to provide adequately wide boots showed, at most,
negligence in measuring the prisoner's feet, rather than deliberate
indifference. Roberson v. Patel, No. 07-11264, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 19250
(Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Prisoner classified by Social Security as
suffering from mental disorders failed to show that alleged delays in medical
care for a leg injury was disability discrimination by correctional
authorities. The Texas correctional authority was not responsible for his
medical care, as independent contractors provided it. The prisoner also failed
to show that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice failed to adequately
maintain a basketball court where he may have suffered his leg injury, for the
purpose of discriminating against disabled inmates, or that he was retaliated
against by forcing him to use traffic paths that were difficult to use with
crutches. Norman v. Tex. Dept. of Criminal Justice, No. 07-41090, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 19914 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner suffering from asthma complained, at a
jail, about difficulty with breathing, and asked to be sent to a hospital. He
was examined by nurses, and by the time his request for hospitalization was
granted, he had suffered a severe asthma attack and died. Correctional officers
were entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit contending that they violated
his Eighth Amendment rights since they reasonably relied on the nurse's medical
treatment of the prisoner, once they obtained such treatment for him. The
qualified immunity defense, however, did not apply to nurses employed by a
private medical provider. Harrison v. Ash, No. 07-2077, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
18503 (6th Cir.).
Sheriff, through his employees at a correctional
center, did not act with deliberate indifference in abruptly discontinuing a
detainee's pain medication and allegedly failing to properly treat her
withdrawal, causing her to attempt suicide. The detainee did not show any signs
of her difficulties, and she never told jail employees that she was suffering
from withdrawal or report the use of medications linked to complications such
as seizures or psychosis. Corley v. Prator, No. 07-31002, 2008 U.S. 18498 (5th
Cir.).
A doctor's failure to indicate on a consultation
form that an examined prisoner should receive a neurological consultation was,
at most, negligence, and was insufficient to support a claim for
constitutionally inadequate medical treatment. Another doctor's denial,
repeatedly, of an orthopedic consultation and the "minimal" treatment
of the problem provided by prison medical staff members could be viewed as
"so cursory" as to amount to no treatment at all, and could be the
basis of a constitutional claim. Parzyck v. Prison Health Services, Inc., No.
07-14715, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18051 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Prisoner who claimed that he was denied proper
medical care of stomach, back, and mental health problems was, in fact, seen by
a physician, a mental health doctor, and nurses, and provided with both
medication and treatment. Further, he failed to show that he suffered from
serious medical needs that required prompt attention, or that he had let
particular correctional personnel know about alleged serious medical needs. The
prisoner was, however, given time to file a supplement to his complaint in an
effort to attempt to state a constitutional claim. Dougherty v. Kansas, No.
08-3066, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60381 (D. Kan.).
The prisoner only showed that he disagreed with
the medical decision by doctors that he should not be provided with anti-viral
therapy for his Hepatitis C, which was insufficient to show deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. One doctor's affidavit indicated
that, because the prisoner had three prior episodes of inflicting injury on
himself while on interferon, which could be interpreted as suicide attempts,
that the prisoner was ineligible for antiviral treatment. The prisoner also
failed to show that he suffered liver damage from alleged exposure to
"toxic" paint. Edmonds v. Rees, No. 3:06-CV-P301, 2008 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 61839 (W.D. Ky.).
A prisoner's records did not show deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs when a doctor
"aggressively" treated him and made repeated requests for appropriate
neurological tests. The physician who allegedly decided to postpone a follow-up
based his decision on a favorable medical report, and approved the follow-up
exam when new medical findings were reported. The delay was, at most,
negligence, and could not support a constitutional claim. Mabry v. Antonini,
No. 07-2122, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 17278 (6th Cir.).
A prisoner who was denied refills of his
prescription medication presented a triable issue of whether there was
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Padilla v. Crawford, No.
06-16017, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16714 (9th Cir.).
A recovering alcoholic who also suffers from
epilepsy was arrested on a probation violation and taken to a county jail on a
Sunday morning. She had a seizure that afternoon, falling from the top bunk of
a bed in her cell, and suffered significant injuries to her right hip and right
clavicle. In a federal civil rights lawsuit, a jury found that none of the jail
officials were deliberately indifferent to the detainee's serious medical needs,
but also found that a county policy regarding weekend medical care constituted
deliberate indifference and caused her injuries, awarding her $214,000 in
damages. On the Sunday in question, neither of two nurses assigned to the jail
was on the premises, and a form requesting medication for the detainee was
merely placed in an inbox for the nurses. A federal appeals court has upheld
the jury's award, and the denial by the trial court of motions to set it aside.
Ford v. County of Grand Traverse, No. 07-1062, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16487 (6th
Cir.).
Inmate who claimed that treatment provided by a
prison doctor for his injured ankle was inadequate was not entitled to a new
trial after the jury returned a verdict for the doctor. A jury member's prior
experience with an ankle injury did not result in improper prejudice to the
inmate's case, based on the trial judge's post-verdict questioning of that
juror. Arreola v. Choudry, No. 07-2696, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14895 (7th Cir.).
Inmate failed to show that two prison doctors
acted with deliberate indifference in failing to diagnose his bladder cancer
during sixteen months of treatment for gross hematuria. The plaintiff failed to
present any evidence that either of the doctors knew of and disregarded a risk
of cancer, even if they were aware that it was a possibility based on the
plaintiff passing blood in his urine. Duckworth v. Ahmad, No. 07-3618, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 14893 (7th Cir.).
A doctor who discontinued specific medications
after an inmate complained about what he believed were the medications' side
effects did not act with deliberate indifference to the inmate's serious
medical needs. When the drugs were no longer administered, the side effects
stopped, and the prisoner's mere "speculation" that the side effects
may have been caused by something other than the drugs could not be used to
show such deliberate indifference. Mayes v. Talbot, No. 08-1059, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 16083 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Prisoner who claimed that a physician's assistant
refused to provide him with prescribed antibiotics after colorectal surgery was
sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find that there was deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. Summary judgment for prison medical
personnel was vacated, with the case remanded for trial. Gil v. Reed, No.
06-1414, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15827 (7th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to show that prison medical
personnel were deliberately indifferent in prescribing hernia surgery on an
"elective" basis only, rather than as an emergency, resulting in a
delay, and in failing to give him a hernia belt that he allegedly needed. The
evidence showed that the defendants engaged in "extensive" efforts to
diagnose, monitor, and control his hernia problem, and therefore did not violate
his Eighth Amendment rights. The inmate was allegedly provided with a back
brace rather than a hernia belt, but failed to complain about the purported
inadequacy of the back brace until six months after it was given to him. Webb
v. Hamidullah, No. 06-7381, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15048 (Unpub. 4th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to show that prison personnel
were deliberately indifferent to his need for treatment for tuberculosis (TB),
Hepatitis C, and sleep apnea. Additionally the administrator of the prison
medical department, who was not a doctor, could not be held to be deliberately
indifferent when she allegedly failed to directly respond to the plaintiff's
medical complaints, when she knew that he was being treated by the prison
doctor. Lee v. Cerullo, No. 08-2227, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14827 (Unpub. 3rd
Cir.).
A pregnant prisoner brought to a hospital for
labor, was kept shackled to the bed at all times, except when medical personnel
requested that the shackles be removed. A federal appeals court ruled that the
policy of shackling inmates while they received medical treatment did not
constitute deliberate indifference to their medical needs, and the shackling
policy was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Nelson v.
Correctional Medical Services, No. 07-2481, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15270 (8th
Cir.).
Prison psychiatrist was not entitled to qualified
immunity in a suicidal prisoner's lawsuit claiming that she acted with
deliberate indifference to his serious injuries. Her action in ordering his
transport 150 miles away for medical treatment while he was in a comatose
condition hours after a suicide attempt, instead of attempting to provide
immediate medical care, could be found to be conduct which would result in a
"significant delay" or even complete denial of medical care. The
exceptional circumstances of the prisoner's comatose condition, the court
found, "obviously" required immediate medical care, so that the trial
court did not err in finding that she was liable for the prisoner's injuries.
The trial court awarded the prisoner $103,800 in compensatory damages, as well
as attorneys' fees. Bias v. Woods, No. 05-10890, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16299
(Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Prisoner stated a claim for deliberate
indifference against prison's medical office for allegedly denying him surgery
for a pre-incarceration elbow deformity injury suffered in a car crash. The
prisoner argued that his arm was shrinking because of the deformity, and that
the mere providing of pain medication was essentially the same as no treatment
at all, because he needed extensive surgery and rehabilitation. Claims against
an administrator, however, were rejected, because he properly relied on the
medical office's determination that no surgery was needed. Acosta v. Watts, No.
07-15088, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13073 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to sufficiently show that medical
personnel in misdiagnosing his psoriasis as spider bites, and therefore
mistreating it with steroid creams acted with deliberate indifference. Even if
his psoriasis constituted a serious medical condition, claims concerning
misdiagnosis and inadequate treatment amounted to no more than medical
negligence, at most, and were inadequate to establish a violation of
constitutional rights. Matthews v. Palte, No. 07-13285, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
13227 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Prisoner's civil rights claims concerning an
alleged delay in surgery for a cut close to his eye were time barred under a
two-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations, and a state law medical
negligence claim also could not be pursued because the prisoner failed to
comply with a requirement that he file a medical certificate of merit
concerning that claim. Lopez v. Brady, Civil No. 4:CV-07-1126, 2008 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 43797 (M.D. Pa.).
Jail personnel did not act with deliberate
indifference to the serious medical needs of a prisoner who died in custody
after being treated for a number of physical and mental ailments. While the
decedent's family claimed that the jail failed to provide timely treatment for
his injuries, withheld needed medicines, and improperly injected anti-psychotic
drugs, as well as failing to prevent an assault on him, the court found that
the jail acted properly in providing a licensed doctor, qualified nurses, and a
social worker, and that these personnel attempted to provide reasonable
treatment based on their evaluations. No real evidence was provided concerning
how the injections showed deliberate indifference. The prisoner died from
occlusive artery disease, and there was no evidence that the defendants knew of
or should have known of a risk of that disease. Boyett v. County of Washington,
No. 06-4315, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13010 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A warden and prison administrator could not be held
liable for the alleged improper denial of recommended eye surgery, because they
relied on the director of a prison medical clinic to make that determination.
The appeals court ruled, however, that summary judgment for the medical
director was improper since many doctors had recommended surgery for the
visually significant growths that the prisoner had on his eyes, and the medical
records did not support the director's argument that he denied surgery because
the condition did not interfere with the prisoner's vision. Further proceedings
were therefore ordered on the claim against the director. Ortiz v. Bezy, No.
07-3807, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12885 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Even assuming that a prisoner's alleged knee pain
constituted a serious medical need, he failed to show that prison personnel had
deliberately denied him treatment with the intent to cause him harm, or that he
had actually suffered resulting harm. He essentially merely disagreed with the
treatment provided, which was inadequate for a civil rights claim. Shope v.
Tex. Dept. of Criminal Justice, No. 07-10714, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13022
(Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner's mere disagreement with the decision
of prison medical staff to pursue a non-surgical course of treatment for his
toe injury was insufficient to show a violation of his constitutional rights.
Davila-Bajana v. Sherman, No. 07-4650, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10847 (Unpub. 3rd
Cir.).
Prisoner could not pursue his lawsuit over an
alleged wrongful failure to authorize back surgery for him when he had
previously already pursued that claim in two prior lawsuits, and courts had
reached the merits of his claim, ruling against him. Claims against a prison
health services nursing coordinator failed because she was not personally involved
in his medical treatment. Perez v. Zunker, No. 07-3202, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
11438 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to present expert medical
testimony or any other evidence to support his claim that he either suffered
multiple strokes or that such strokes occurred as a result of a doctor's
alleged action in injecting him with an "enhancement" fluid which was
not approved for human testing. He also failed to show that the doctor had the
subjective intention to cause him unneeded pain. The court also found that the
serum in question was not experimental, and that it had been approved for human
use. Stewart v. Wilkinson, No. 2:03-cv-0687, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 35715 (S.D.
Ohio).
A prisoner's claim that his fractured arm was
improperly set amounted to, at most, a claim for medical malpractice or
negligence, and was insufficient to state a claim for violation of his
constitutional rights. Baez v. Kahanowicz, No. 07-1118, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
10629 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
When prison doctors believed that an inmate's
pre-incarceration levels of medication were harming him, they did not violate
his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to continue to prescribe a high-dose
narcotic pain medication which had been provided to him before his
incarceration to treat an "intractable-pain disorder" he suffered
from as the result of a crushed forearm. The doctors performed various tests
and tried a number of methods and medications to address his pain, and did not
act with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The fact that
the prisoner disagreed with their conclusions and treatment decisions was
insufficient for a federal civil rights claim. Steele v. Weber, No. 07-1257,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10869 (8th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to show that the former
administrator of the prison in which he was incarcerated acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs, in the absence of any proof that the
defendant had reason to belief that medical providers available at the facility
were not providing him with treatment. Garcia v. Achebe, No. 07-4087, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 7103 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Even if a prisoner's death was the result of a
methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection caused by a wound
from a spider bite on his thigh, the plaintiff failed to provide proof that
this infection and his death was caused by any breach of the standard of care
for such infections. Additionally, at the time of the incident, the condition
of community-acquired MRSA was not "widely acknowledged" in the
medical field. Zemmelman v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, No.
2005-05680, 2008 Ohio Misc. Lexis 59 (Ohio Ct. of Claims).
Removal of a prisoner from his misconduct hearing
by correctional officers and prison nurses did not violate his First Amendment
rights. His statement at the proceeding that the hearing officer was a
"foul and corrupted bitch" was not protected by the First Amendment
and constituted "insolence" in violation of prison regulations,
questioning the hearing officer's authority and the proceeding's integrity. The
court also found that the amount of force used was minimal and reasonable under
the circumstances. The prisoner also failed to show deliberate indifference to
his medical needs for his minor cuts and lacerations. Lockett v. Suardini, No.
06-2392, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10359 (6th Cir.).
A prisoner's claim that jail employees and
officials acted with deliberate indifference to his need for medical care for
sores on the back of his thighs, which turned out to be a Methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection, accrued no later than the date he was
taken to a hospital emergency room after allegedly seeking medical treatment
for a week, since he was provided with medical care for his condition after
that date. Certain claims were therefore time barred. The prisoner also failed
to show that the defendants were deliberately indifferent once they became
aware of his serious medical needs. Davis v. Bartholomew County Jail, No.
1:07-cv-639, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18500 (S.D. Ind.).
No reasonable jury could find that prison
officials acted with deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical
needs, resulting in her death. When transferred to the facility in question,
she had rapid breathing and was uncooperative, but this was insufficient to
indicate the presence of a serious medical condition requiring immediate care.
Additionally, the prisoner did not request medical assistance, and was found
dead in her cell the next day. The cause of death was a pulmonary edema. Jones
v. Minnesota Dep't of Corr., No. 06-3900, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 325 (8th Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that his hand, broken during a
fight in jail, was placed in a cast without first being set, that he did not
see a bone specialist within 48 hours, and that one doctor did not comply with
follow-up procedures showed, at most negligence, which was insufficient for a
federal constitutional claim. Further, correctional officials could not be held
vicariously liable for the actions of medical personnel. Case v. Riley, No.
07-11489, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6434 (11th Cir.).
Mother of deceased inmate failed to show that
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs caused his death when she
submitted no evidence or affidavits to oppose the defendants' expert's
affidavit stating that the prisoner received reasonable medical treatment in
response to his complaints, and consistent with his medical history. Johnson v.
McDonough, No. 07-13623, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6122 (11th Cir.).
Diabetic prisoner failed to show that
correctional authorities violated his rights by failing to give him a
"diabetic diet." His primary physician stated that he had first
placed the prisoner on a "therapeutic diet" with a calorie-controlled
menu, and had later switched him to a carbohydrate-controlled diet, and that
these diets were sufficient to improve the prisoner's condition. The prisoner's
claims amount to, at most, his disagreement with the treatment provided, and
did not show deliberate indifference to his diabetes. Anderson v. Burge, No.
06-CV-6227, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24517 (W.D.N.Y.).
Prisoner presented some evidence that he was
denied medical care for nine hours after an injury, was not given prescription
drugs for needed treatment, and that he was prevented from showing up for
follow-up surgery intended to restore vision to his left eye. He also claims
that he sent notice to the sheriff regarding these medical needs, but that no
remedial actions were taken. If the prisoner's claims were true, the sheriff's
inaction was objectively unreasonable. Baker v. Bowles, No. 07-10833, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 6707 (5th Cir.).
Prisoner with AIDS adequately alleged that
the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by
delaying him from seeing a doctor for months, not permitting him to take his
AIDS medications because of his housing assignment, and failing to provide him
with medical attention on an occasion that he passed blood, as well as denying
him adequate food, which affected his health. The prisoner failed, however, to
establish a viable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, since the
mere fact that he had AIDS was inadequate standing alone, to show that he had a
disability. Carter v. Taylor, Civ. No. 06-561, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25158 (D.
Del.).
A Pennsylvania inmate claimed that his
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection was developed
while he was working in a prison's laundry, and he sued for allegedly
unconstitutional working conditions. An expert witness offered by the prisoner
who was an environmental scientist and not a medical doctor could not testify
on the cause and nature of the prisoner's skin rashes, or that he suffered from
a MRSA infection, and further proceedings would determine whether he could
testify on the conditions present in the prison's laundry. While the prisoner's
medical records could be used to establish that he had a MRSA infection,
expert witness medical testimony was needed to establish that this condition
was caused by prison laundry working conditions. Wolfgang v. Smithers, Civil
No. 4:CV-03-167, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28597 (M.D. Pa.).
A prisoner seeking to pursue a medical
malpractice claim concerning the treatment he received for a sinus infection
was required to present expert witness testimony as to the applicable
professional standard of care, and the defendants were properly granted summary
judgment on the basis of his failure to do so. Additionally, the trial judge
did not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint an expert witness for the
prisoner. The lawsuit was filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Hannah v.
US, No. 06-11091, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 7265 (5th Cir. 2008).
Even if a hole in the prisoner's skull constituted
a serious medical need, the prisoner, in his lawsuit claiming deliberate
indifference in failing to surgically install a protective metal plate to cover
it, did not show either that he had suffered any harm from the failure to do
so, or that he had been deliberately denied treatment with the intent to harm
him. Further, his own documents showed that he was seen "repeatedly"
by doctors, including specialists, who had not found that it was necessary to
install his requested skull plate. He also failed to show that the conditions
of his confinement were such that correctional officials were deliberately
indifferent to a need to protect him against the possibility than unidentified
violent prisoners would later injury him because of the unprotected hole in his
head. Walls v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, No. 07-20094, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 6103 (5th Cir.).
Pretrial detainee failed to show that jail
personnel acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by
failing to provide him with adequate pain medication for a period of time after
his finger was broken. The injury to his finger occurred when he caught his
hand in a van door while being transported to the courthouse from the jail. The
plaintiff failed to point to any swelling, bleeding, discoloration, or visible
broken bones that would have put jail personnel on notice that he obviously
needed immediate medical attention. Barron v. Macy, No. 07-3276, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 5208 (10th Cir.).
Federal prisoner without any kidneys, and who had
received hemodialysis for more than 14 years, was not entitled to an order
requiring that he be provided with a kidney transplant. The most that the court
could do was order officials to review the prisoner's request, and they had, in
fact, already recommended him as a candidate for such a transplant, so that his
request was moot. Sanchez v. Sabol, No. 07-40090, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18525
(D. Mass.).
Prisoner failed to show that medical treatment
for the boils on his arm and chest was constitutionally inadequate.
Specifically, he failed to show that daily treatment of his boils was an
objectively serious medical need or that he was subjected to an escalating or
acute condition that medical personnel ignored. Jackson v. Douglas, No. 07-1808,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5940 (8th Cir.).
Prisoner's claims against the Indiana Department
of Corrections and its facilities for alleged inadequate medical care for
failing to treat a painful injury were barred by the state's Eleventh Amendment
immunity. The plaintiff failed to show that the Department's Commissioner had
any personal involvement in health care decisions concerning him, requiring the
dismissal of claims against the Commissioner. The court also dismissed claims
against a private medical services provider whose employees provided medical
care at the facility where the plaintiff was incarcerated, since he did not
claim that its officials made any decisions concerning his alleged inadequate
care or that the inadequate care resulted from its policies. The prisoner could
not pursue his claims against the provider's doctors until he had identified
them. The court also rejected the plaintiff's equal protection claim since he
did not allege that he suffered treatment different from that provided to any
other similarly situated individuals. Voss v. Ind. Depart. of Corrections, No.
3:07-CV-449, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8771 (N.D. IN.).
Prisoner's claim that correctional employees
improperly delayed transferring him for surgery after his gallstones condition
was diagnosed was sufficient for him to pursue a lawsuit against the District
of Columbia and its employees. Claims against a private prison contractor and
its employees, however, were dismissed on the basis of the dismissal of a prior
lawsuit against them. Brown v. D.C., No. 05-5320, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2254
(D.C. Cir.).
While a prisoner claimed that his appendicitis
had been misdiagnosed as a urinary tract infection, he did not allege that
medical personnel intentionally provided him with incorrect and inadequate
treatment. His claims, therefore, amounted to negligence, which was
insufficient for a federal civil rights claim. Garrett v. University of Texas
Medical Branch, No. 07-40421, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 741 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner knew of his alleged injuries from
inadequate medical treatment when it occurred in 1994 and 1995, and even filed
a state court medical malpractice lawsuit in 1996 based on the same conduct
that was the basis for his federal civil rights lawsuit. The current lawsuit,
filed in 2007, was therefore time barred under a two-year Pennsylvania statute
of limitations, and there was no evidence to support the
"tolling" (extension) of the statute of limitations. Fullman v.
Pa. Dept. of Corrections, No. 07-3967, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3401 (3rd Cir.).
Prisoner failed to show that correctional
officials acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by
withholding a pair of mail ordered sneakers from him, which he wanted to use to
treat his foot pain. The prisoner did not claim that they prevented him from
obtaining different sneakers, which complied with their security concerns.
Flemings v. Ryan, No. 06-56630, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29055 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner's lawsuit concerning allegedly
inadequate medical care provided to him for an injury he suffered during a slip
and fall on an ice-covered sidewalk boiled down to a disagreement with the
level of care he received, which did not amount to an Eighth Amendment
violation. Martinez v. Dretke, No. 07-10434, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1467 (5th
Cir.).
Detainee did not show that he was provided with
constitutionally inadequate medical care for his seizure disorder, his anxiety
and depression, or his infected tooth. Medical personnel gave him a
prescription for the seizure medication he preferred to take, and gave him a
choice between having his family obtain that medication for him, or else having
the facility provide him with an different seizure drug which the facility
would pay for. The medical personnel also provided him with two medications for
his anxiety and depression, and provided him with the opportunity to attend
therapy sessions. Antibiotics were also provided to the detainee, as well as
pain medication, during a two-month period he waited to have his infected tooth
extracted. Blanchard v. White County Detention Center Staff, No. 07-12313, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 1612 (11th Cir.).
An inmate suffering from an eye problem, a
cataract, was monitored by doctors, and received eye surgery when it was decided
that it was medically necessary. There was no showing that a three-month wait
for an eye doctor appointment resulted in any permanent damage or additional
harm. The inmate's claims against the Governor of Hawaii were also rejected,
and could not be based merely on the fact that she was the governor. Samonte v.
Bauman, No. 06-16697, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1559 (9th Cir.).
Detained alien did not show that federal
officials were personally involved in the alleged deliberate indifference to
his medical needs while he was in a county jail. Further, his claims against
county jail personnel for alleged inadequate medical care amount, at most, to
medical malpractice, which was insufficient to state a claim for violation of
the Eighth Amendment. The detainee also failed to show that any alleged delay
in providing him with treatment caused him any harm. Harvey v. Chertoff, No.
07-2206, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2096 (3rd Cir.).
Missouri Department of Corrections' policy of not
providing transportation for inmates' elective, non-therapeutic abortion is
unreasonable under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
court also rules, however, that elective non-therapeutic abortions are not a
serious medical need, and that a prison's refusal to provide such an abortion
is not deliberate indifference for purposes of an Eighth Amendment
claim. Roe v. Crawford, No. 06-3108 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1185 (8th Cir.
2008).
Claim that the lack of a county correctional
policy concerning drug overdoses caused a detainee's death in custody from a
drug overdose was properly rejected. The evidence showed, in fact, that the
facility's staff violated a written policy in responding to the detainee's
medical complaints by failing to call for emergency medical care after he was
found to have a heart rate above 100 as well as chest pain. Additionally, the
detainee's estate failed to offer any evidence of how alleged inadequate
medical training rendered staff members unable to adequately respond to the
situation. Powers v. County of Lorain, Ohio, No. 06-4515, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
1129 (6th Cir.).
Pregnant female detainee presented sufficient
medical evidence to show that she had a serious medical problem of prolonged
amniotic leakage. which could lead to an infection and the death of her fetus.
A jail facility commander was not entitled to qualified immunity, based on his
alleged knowledge of this problem and his alleged deliberate decision to
disbelieve all inmate complaints about medical care. The sheriff, however, was
not shown to have had actual knowledge that jail policies were being
implemented in a way that arguably ignored legitimate medical needs, and was
therefore entitled to summary judgment. Goebert v. Lee County, No. 06-10606,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29513 (11th Cir.).
Medical records did not show that an inmate
received deliberate indifference to his medical needs. While it took a number
of months to properly diagnose his problem, during that time period prison
medical personnel conducted numerous tests in an attempt to make a diagnosis.
Once the problem was diagnosed, the prisoner received crutches and a leg cast,
which was appropriate treatment. The prisoner suffered no substantial harm from
the delay in the diagnosis and treatment. Ramirez v. Stacks, No. 06-41447, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 29611 (5th Cir.).
While the prisoner presented evidence that her
mental and physical condition deteriorated during the time period at issue, she
did not present sufficient evidence to establish a factual issue as to whether
there was a policy or custom of denying needed tests and treatment to inmates
with her symptoms, or of making medical decisions based solely on financial
concerns. A company that provided prison medical services was therefore
entitled to summary judgment in the lawsuit. Southworth v. Missouri Dept. of
Corrections, No. 06-3735, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29795 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner who was suffering kidney failure
failed to show that medical personnel acted with deliberate indifference in
placing an arteriovenous graft in his arm and failing to subsequently remove
it. While the graft, as it turned out, was not needed, the prisoner's mere
difference of opinion concerning the medical treatment provided did not
demonstrate deliberate indifference, and he also failed to show that he had a
serious medical need to have the graft removed. Grimsley v. Hammack, No.
06-12143, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 27522 (11th Cir.).
Medical records did not show that an inmate
received deliberate indifference to his medical needs. While it took a number
of months to properly diagnose his problem, during that time period prison
medical personnel conducted numerous tests in an attempt to make a diagnosis.
Once the problem was diagnosed, the prisoner received crutches and a leg cast,
which was appropriate treatment. The prisoner suffered no substantial harm from
the delay in the diagnosis and treatment. Ramirez v. Stacks, No. 06-41447, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 29611 (5th Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that prison employees
refused to give him a single dose of his high blood pressure medication did not
show a violation of his rights. The prisoner did not show that the defendants
knew that he would allegedly require hospitalization as a result of their
actions. The prison's policy requiring that a prisoner stand to receive their
medication and have their cell lights on, and their identification available
was not unreasonable. Moreland v. Roscko, No. 05-10508, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
26445 (5th Cir.).
While prison medical clinic employees were wrong
in concluding that an inmate was not having a heart attack, they did engage in
efforts to determine whether he was, including performing an enzyme test,
placing him on a cardiac monitor, and providing him with oxygen, an analgesic,
and an aspirin, as well as trying to keep him calm. Additionally, when his
symptoms did not improve, he was sent to a hospital in an ambulance. Given
these facts, the inmate failed to show deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need, even though the facts may have shown medical malpractice or
negligence. Taylor v. CMCF 720 Clinic, No. 06-60397, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 26781
(5th Cir.).
When the prisoner's medical records showed that
he had been examined by a number of doctors, including specialists, and received
various medications for his complaints, as well as undergoing various tests,
including MRIs, x-rays, and hearing tests, his claim for deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs was not supported by the facts,
despite his subjective believe that his medical care was not adequate. Pettus
v. Wright, No. 04-CV-6203, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73713 (W.D.N.Y.).
The fact that a prisoner suffered a slight stroke
after a jail superintendent and a jail physician decided not to take her to an
outside doctor for treatment for her high blood pressure did not constitute
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, but instead only showed, at
most, either negligence or a mere disagreement over the services provided.
Knight v. Barlow, 1:07cv384, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73586 (E.D. Va.).
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
does not apply to the federal government, so that a prisoner could not pursue
an ADA disability discrimination claim against the federal Bureau of Prisons
for the alleged wrongful refusal to classify him as medically unable to work.
The prisoner's claim concerning alleged deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs showed, at most, a disagreement with the medical treatment
provided or an incorrect diagnosis of his condition by prisoner personnel, both
of which would be inadequate to demonstrate a violation of his constitutional
rights. The prisoner allegedly suffered from an inner ear disorder (Meniere's
disease), and had also requested to be seen by an orthopedic specialist for
problems with his neck, back, left hip, knee and ankle. .Marlin v. Alexandre,
No. 06-30838, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 26534 (5th Cir.).
Relatives of prisoner who died from a drug
overdose failed to provide any evidence to support their argument that the
drugs had been administered to him by other inmates forcing him to take them,
or that his death resulted from prison officials failure to provide adequate
personnel to supervise inmates to avoid such incidents. The plaintiffs could
proceed, however, on their claim that certain defendants acted with deliberate
indifference by eliminating in-house emergency medical facilities despite the
common occurrence of drug overdoses among the inmate population.
Rivera-Quinones v. Rivera-Gonzalez, Civil No. 03-2326, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis
81258 (D. Puerto Rico).
A prisoner claimed that he was denied two
injections prescribed for treatment of syphilis. In the trial court, the case
was dismissed based on the representation by correctional officials that the
prisoner had only filed one grievance concerning medical treatment, but which
did not raise the question of the injections. On appeal, the state located
prison records showing that the prisoner had, in fact, filed another grievance
concerning the failure to give him the injections, but argued that the prisoner
did not complete the administrative process for that grievance. The appeals
court ruled that the defendants were barred from asserting failure to exhaust
available administrative remedies on that claim, since the late disclosure of
the grievance on the injections did not allow the trial court to adequately
address that issue. Cunningham v. Dept. of Correctional Services, No. 05-5072,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 26608 (2nd Cir.).
Prisoner who claimed that he was exposed to
environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in violation of his constitutional rights
failed to allege facts sufficient to create a triable issue as to whether the
levels of ETS were unreasonable, or whether the defendants knowingly
disregarded the risk of harm to him from the exposure. Beasley v. Arizona Dept.
of Corrections, No. 05-17079, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 27771 (9th Cir.).
A Georgia prisoner failed to present sufficient
evidence from which a jury could find that he was deliberately exposed to an
unreasonable level of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). He also failed to
refute the diagnosis, by a prison doctor, that he did not suffer from a serious
respiratory or cardiovascular medical problem that would result in him being at
particular risk from ETS. Giddens v. Calhoun State Prison, No. 07-11988, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 25248 (11th Cir.).
An Illinois prisoner failed to show that his
rights were violated in connection with his exposure to second-hand tobacco
smoke. The prisoner suffered from asthma, which allegedly worsened during his
incarceration. In granting summary judgment to prison officials, the court
found that the prisoner had been granted access to doctors, an asthma clinic,
and his prescribed medications, and that he was moved to a non-smoking cell
when he requested it, and to the medical wing when his prison doctor
recommended it. Under these circumstances, prison officials did not act with
deliberate indifference. Even if an Eighth Amendment violation were to be
found, the defendant officials would be entitled to qualified immunity because
they would not have known, at the time, that they were violating his rights.
Lee v. Young, No. 02-cv-281, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 74259 (S.D. Ill.).
Prison employees without medical training, who
relied on advice from medical personnel in transferring a prisoner with
hepatitis C to a unit where he allegedly could not receive prompt medical
attention, did not act with deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. Glover v. Haferman, No. 07-1674, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 25610 (7th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to show that his exposure to
black mold at a correctional facility caused any particular harm or symptoms,
and merely expressed unsupported predictions of future medical problems. The
evidence showed that correctional officials, on learning of the black mold,
took immediate remedial actions to make sure that prisoners were not exposed to
it, so the plaintiff failed to show deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. Additionally, the prisoner did receive medical care for
headaches, the only symptom he complained of. McIntyre v. Phillips, Case No.
1:07-CV-527, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 75353 (W.D. Mich.).
Prison did not ignore an inmate's medical
problems, but rather engaged in evaluation of his complaints both in a prison
infirmary and subsequently in a hospital. A wrist fracture which was not
initially diagnosed was not obvious, so that the delay in diagnosing it, while
it might have been negligent, was not a violation of the prisoner's
constitutional rights. The court also found that the evidence showed that the
force used against the prisoner during a forced cell-entry was objectively
reasonable. Arceneaux v. Leger, No. 06-30918, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24393 (5th
Cir.).
While a prison nurse may have acted negligently
in applying bleach to a prisoner's bee sting, allegedly causing him a
second-degree burn, the prisoner failed to show any facts which would have
established that she acted with deliberate indifference to a known danger of
serious harm in allegedly applying undiluted bleach to his skin. Johnson v.
Seckler, No. 07-40027, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24149 (5th Cir.).
Prisoner had a right not to be subjected to
unwanted medical treatment, except in certain instances when such treatment is
necessary to secure the "health and safety of the affected individual,
other inmates, and prison personnel." His medical request form asking that
he be examined by the medical staff did not dispose of the issue as to whether
subsequent medical treatment was imposed upon him without his consent, or
whether that treatment was medically necessary in a manner justifying
imposition without consent. Simms v. Bair, No. 07-6403, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
23680 (4th Cir.).
In prisoner's lawsuit over the alleged refusal of
a prison clinical director to give him a narcotic medicine prescribed by a
neurologist, there was evidence which indicated that the neurologist in fact
changed his recommendation after learning of the prisoner's past prescription
narcotics addiction. Additionally, there was no indication that the defendant
director improperly delayed treatment of the prisoner for non-medical reasons.
Whooten v. Bussanich, No. 07-1441, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21856 (3rd Cir.).
While a prisoner's Hepatitis C was a serious
medical need, since it could result in liver disease and death, the plaintiff
had failed to show that the federal government acted with deliberate
indifference to his need for treatment. The prisoner's condition was monitored
by routine blood tests, and he was also provided with an ultrasound, which
showed that his liver was normal. The prison officials did not act improperly
in requiring that the inmate, who had a long history of mental illness, be
cleared by the prison's psychology services department before being placed on a
list for a liver biopsy. All that the prisoner succeeded in showing was his
disagreement with the course of treatment provided, which did not show a
violation of his rights. Coleman-Bey v. U.S.A., No. 06-1855, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 66645 (D.D.C.).
Prisoner who suffered a stroke adequately stated
claims for possible deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Among
other things, he claimed that he was placed in a special housing unit without a
needed wheelchair or walking aid, that his blood pressure was not consistently
monitored, and that he was denied access to materials necessary for his
physical therapy. Estrada v. Reed, No. 07-C-442, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68769
(W.D. Wis.).
While the record showed that a prisoner who
suffered a back injury while performing a prison job was provided with
treatment for his injury at that facility, the trial court failed to address
the prisoner's claims that he was subjected to either denial or delay of medical
treatments and appointments, in violation of recommendations by certain medical
specialists, requiring further proceedings. Cooleen v. Lamanna, No. 05-4751,
2007 U.S. App. 22204 (3rd Cir.).
In a lawsuit over the death of a detainee at a
county jail from a methamphetamine overdose, there was sufficient evidence from
which a reasonable jury could possibly find that both a deputy sheriff and a
jailer knew that the detainee had swallowed drugs during his arrest, but
deliberately disregarded his resulting medical needs. There was no evidence,
however, that other jail employees had any such knowledge, or that any
additional training would have made a difference in how the detainee was
treated. Hall v. County of Nemaha, Neb., No. 4:06CV3069, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis
66002 (D. Neb.).
Prison personnel could not be held liable for
inmate's death from a malignant growth in her neck, since there was no showing
that they deliberately disregarded a known risk to her health. The employees
relied upon diagnoses provided by medical professionals which did not inform
them of the danger the prisoner faced from the swelling on her neck, and the
employees followed proper procedures by alerting medical personnel about the
swelling and then treating the prisoner's swelling as they were directed.
Forton v. Ogemaw County, No. 06-1753, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 20145 (6th Cir.).
When a prisoner received both medical treatment
and pain medication for his condition while incarcerated, he failed to show
that medical personnel acted with deliberate indifference to his claim that he
had a nerve entrapment and hernia that required surgery. Baez v. Immigration
and Naturalization Service, No. 06-30112, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 20048 (5th
Cir.).
Prisoner received "substantial" medical
treatment for his sinus and ear problems while incarcerated, including x-rays,
antibiotics, and treatment by a specialist, and failed to show deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. Any argument that the treatment he
received was ineffective was, at most, a medical malpractice claim, and did not
establish any violation of his constitutional rights. Fox v. Fischer, No.
05-4440, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17316 (2nd Cir.).
Appeals court rejects prisoner's argument that
independent contractors, such as a medical center and doctors providing medical
services to federal prisoners were agents of the government. The waiver of
sovereign immunity contained in the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs.
2671-2680 does not apply to negligent acts of independent contractors.
Additionally, even if the Chief Health Programmer at a facility was found to be
a federal employee, a doctor's alleged negligent action of tearing the
prisoner's stitches while conducting an examination of his eye was a
"subsequent cause," so that any negligence by the Programmer was not
the cause of the prisoner's injuries. The prisoner's claims were therefore
properly dismissed. Lopez-Heredia v. University of Texas Medical Branch
Hospital, No. 05-11365, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16102 (5th Cir.).
An obese inmate with high blood pressure failed
to show any medical evidence demonstrating that any purported delay in
responding to his claim of chest pains caused him any harm. Williams v. Liefer,
No. 06-3493 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 15948 (7th Cir.).
When a prisoner had begun receiving the treatment
he wanted for his hepatitis C, his request for injunctive relief was moot. The
appeals court also upheld the trial courts' rejection of other claims by the
prisoner concerning the alleged denial and delay of medical treatment for his
hepatitis C and a hernia. Neely v. Ortiz, No. 06-1314, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 14692 (10th Cir.).
Prisoner who was treated for a spider bite on his
leg with a heat pack, who allegedly suffered a severe burn when a nurse failed
to check on him after applying the heat pack failed to show deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. He also failed to adequately show
that a second nurse delayed treatment for the burn for two hours in retaliation
for his having complained to prison officials about her alleged refusal to
treat him. Jones v. University of Texas Medical Branch Hospital, No. 06-11128,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13984 (5th Cir.).
In a lawsuit over the death of an allegedly
mentally ill pretrial detainee while in custody in a county jail, the plaintiff
failed to show that the decedent had been discriminated against because of his
alleged disability of mental illness or that there had been deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. There was also no proof of an
official policy or custom of depriving mentally ill detainees of needed medical
treatment. The cause of the detainee's death was a previously undiagnosed
physical ailment of "peritonitis due to a perforated ulcer,"
and the prisoner's mental illness may have rendered meaningful communication
with the medical personnel who treated him "almost impossible." In
the absence of accurate information from the patient, the medical personnel
were denied information that might have aided in their ability to timely
diagnose the perforated ulcer. Winters v. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human
Servs., No. 06-2787 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 15486. (8th Cir.).
A prisoner's failure to hire an expert witness to
show that his medical needs, arising from his heart condition, were
"serious" did not require summary judgment for the defendants in a
lawsuit for alleged deliberate indifference to his condition and delay in
providing him with medication. The court ruled that a lay person would know
that medical needs in connection with such a heart condition were serious.
Bosco v. C.F.G. Health Systems, NO. 04-CV-3517, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis
44314 (D.N.J.).
Prison officials were not shown to have acted
with deliberate indifference in denying a prisoner's request for a replacement
prosthetic leg, based on his claim that it fit poorly and caused him pain. The
prisoner was offered alternatives of using crutches, a cane, or a wheelchair
instead of getting a replacement prosthetic leg, and his mere disagreement with
his treating doctors about these alternatives for his serious medical
condition, an amputated leg, was insufficient to show deliberate indifference.
Gillen v. D'Amico, No. 06-15733, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13846 (9th Cir.).
A doctor's actions in failing to provide a
prisoner with a walking stick, cane, or knee brace for a period of time, if
true, was, at most, a difference of opinion or negligence (medical
malpractice), and was insufficient to state a claim for violation of the
prisoner's constitutional rights. The prisoner also failed to show that he
suffered injuries because he was placed on the second floor of a building, or
assigned to a hoe squad work detail, which he claimed violated his medical
restrictions. The prisoner was denied the right to proceed with his appeal as a
pauper, and his appeal was dismissed. The dismissal constituted a "third
strike" against the prisoner, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(g),
including the trial court's dismissal of the immediate lawsuit, and an appeals
court's dismissal of a prior civil rights case by the prisoner as frivolous.
Johnson v. Talley, No. 05-50947, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13879 (5th Cir.).
Prisoner who received treatment more than 30
times between January 2003 and March 2004 for his ear infections, including
receiving antibiotics, antihistamines, anti-inflammatory and pain medications,
and ear drops, and was sent to a specialist approximately five months after the
ear infections began did not show deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs, despite the fact that he subsequently suffered a significant
hearing loss. Additionally, because the warden was not a doctor, his alleged
failure to respond to the prisoner's medical complaints while he was already
being treated by medical staff members was not deliberate indifference. Gusman
v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-2022, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11571 (3rd Cir.).
Prisoner did not show that a knee injury he
suffered was sufficiently serious so that a 30-minute delay, as opposed to
denial, of treatment for it constituted deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. The prisoner's injury was a "chronic knee condition,"
present for years, for which it was not "obvious" that it required a
doctor's attention. There was also no evidence that the delay caused him any
damage. Hood v. Krajnik, No. 05-10254, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23342 (E.D.
Mich.).
Even if all of a prisoner's complaints concerning
his medical and dental treatment were true, that merely established that there
was a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate medical treatment for
his problems, or that certain defendants were negligent, rather than a
violation of his constitutional rights. The prisoner himself agreed that the
defendants provided him with the treatment they deemed appropriate. Beauclair
v. Graves, No. 06-3265, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12149 (10th Cir.).
Former federal prisoner failed to show that a
negligent response to his medical condition caused him to suffer a brain
hemorrhage leaving him severely and permanently disabled. In upholding the
verdict of a bench trial finding the U.S. government not liable for his
injuries under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b)(1), a
federal appeals court ruled that an expert witness who seems to deny possession
a relevant expertise does not have to automatically and by reason of that
statement alone, be barred from testifying, and that experts are not always
required to render a written report as a precondition to being permitted to
testify. The court found that the clinical director at the U.S. Department of
Justice's Bureau of Prisons' Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
was properly allowed to testify that, in his opinion, a prison medical team at
all times acted professionally and competently in the treatment of the
prisoner, despite the fact that he failed to prepare an expert report prior to
taking the stand, and at his deposition seemed to deny having a relevant
expertise. The appeals court noted that it is the trial court's job to decide
whether an individual is sufficiently qualified to testify as an expert, by
virtue of training and experience, and based on the facts and circumstances of
each case, so that the witnesses' own statement concerning whether he is an
expert is not dispositive. The witness could, therefore, be properly allowed to
testify as an expert in health care in federal prisons, "his modesty
notwithstanding." Additionally, while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(2)(B) states that disclosure of expert witnesses who are "retained
or specially employed" to provide expert testimony in a case shall (except
as "otherwise stipulated or directed by the court") be accompanied by
a "written report prepared and signed by the witness," the witness in
this case was not "retained or specially employed" to provide his
testimony, but was, instead a person employed by the federal prisons and not a
person who regularly gives expert testimony," so that the report
requirement did not apply. Watson v. US, No. 05-6262 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 10526
(10th Cir.).
In a lawsuit arising out of the death of a county
inmate who hung himself, the plaintiff failed to show that the actions of
county employees violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 12101 et seq., since there was no showing that the decedent had been
denied access to programs or services because of a disability. Claims for
alleged medical malpractice under state law, and that the county had policies,
practices, and procedures depriving the decedent of his Eighth Amendment rights,
however, were viable on the basis of disputed facts concerning his treatment.
Herman v. County of York, No. 1:05-CV-2501, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28824 (M.D.
Pa.).
Prisoner did not show that deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs was present when his medication for
his diabetes was temporarily confiscated, as he did not claim that it
endangered his life. Booth v. King, No. 06-1552, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8327 (3rd
Cir.).
Sheriff was not liable for the death of a
detainee from complications of open-heart surgery when there was evidence that
the decedent had refused treatment, and even the plaintiff admitted that the
sheriff lacked personal knowledge of the decedent's medical condition. The
plaintiff also failed to show a policy or custom causing deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs, or any history of past widespread abuse
that would have made the sheriff aware of alleged inadequacy in the medical
care being provided at the county jail. Weaver v. Mobile County, No. 06-14237,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9102 (11th Cir.).
Florida State Department of Corrections was
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity against prisoner's claim that he was
provided with inadequate medical care and treatment. Claims against a doctor
failed to show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, as even
the inmate admitted that he was provided with a special relief cream for his
arthritis when he complained of pain, along with anti-inflammatory medication
and an order barring him from standing for longer than ten minutes. He also did
not even claim that these specific treatments failed to help him, and only
complained that he was denied special boots, which he claimed were needed for
his arthritis. Leonard v. Dept. of Corrections, State of Florida, No. 06-11223,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9691 (11th Cir.).
The mere fact that expert witnesses for the
plaintiff disagreed with the type of antibiotic chosen to treat an inmate who
subsequently died was insufficient to show deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. Ruiz-Rosa v. Rullan, No. 06-1761, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9294 (1st
Cir.).
When it was undisputed that an inmate with a
record of leg and foot injuries, including an amputated toe, was provided with
treatment for the length differential of his legs, and a doctor's affidavit
stated that the shoes he received were adequate for his condition, the mere
fact that the inmate requested different, soft shoes did not show deliberate
indifference by medical personnel. Turner v. Solorzano, No. 06-15737, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 9537 (11th Cir.).
Prisoners allowed to proceed with class action
lawsuit claiming that male prisoners at county jail were screened for sexually
transmitted diseases without their consent. The jail's admissions process for pretrial
detainees allegedly had included a urethral swabbing inside a detainee's penis
to collect samples to test for such sexually transmitted diseases as gonorrhea
and chlamydia. The trial judge declined to enter summary judgment either for or
against the defendant correctional officials. Jackson v. Sheriff of Cook
County, et al., No. 06 C 493, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21141 (N.D. Ill.).
Louisiana prisoner failed to show that two
emergency medical technicians ignored his medical complaints, refused to treat
him, or purposefully provided him with improper treatment. Claims against
correctional officials and employees in their official capacities were claims
against the state, which were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Calloway v.
Cowan, No. 05-30446, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 6433 (5th Cir.).
In a lawsuit over treatment of a detainee who
suffered both a seizure and a disabling brain aneurysm within 72 hours of being
placed in a jail, following his complaint of a four-day headache, there was
sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that an emergency medical
technician acted with deliberate indifference by allegedly ignoring a doctor's
order that he be contacted if the headache worsened, when the EMT allegedly
knew that the prisoner had a family history of cerebral aneurysm. Webb v.
Douglas County, No. 05-35481, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 5963 (9th Cir.).
Inmate's knee injury, a torn meniscus, did not
constitute a "serious medical need" for purposes of the Eighth
Amendment. Additionally, the prisoner was provided with both surgery and
treatment for pain. The mere fact that he might have preferred the surgery to
be performed earlier, or that the treatment be "more aggressive" did
not show a violation of his constitutional rights. Johnson v. Wright, No.
05-CV-6313, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17915 (W.D.N.Y.).
In a medical malpractice case brought against the
federal Bureau of Prisons applying Virginia law through the Federal Tort Claims
Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq., a prisoner could not show negligence
in the failure to diagnose and treat his neurological impairment in the absence
of expert witness testimony. Further, under Virginia law, the prisoner had to
provide a certificate of merit for his lawsuit prior to filing it, except if
his claim fell within an exception for "rare instances" where the
alleged medical negligence was within the "common knowledge and
experience" of non-experts, which was not the case here. Summary judgment
was therefore granted for the government. Parker v. U.S., No. 1:06cv774, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 12760 (E.D. Va.).
Mother of Louisiana inmate who died from
complications of HIV failed to show that prison medical personnel acted with
deliberate indifference to a known excessive risk that he would die from such complications.
Defendants were therefore entitled to summary judgment in federal civil rights
lawsuit. Lee v. Stalder, No. 06-30444, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 5732 (5th Cir.).
Prisoner who reported brief periods of vision
loss failed to show that prison doctor acted with deliberate indifference. The
record showed that the prisoner was examined promptly after complaining about
the problem, and that the prisoner's mere difference of opinion concerning what
treatment he should have received was insufficient to establish a
constitutional violation. The doctor's actions, if wrongful at all, were at
most negligence, and did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Williams v. Ayers,
No. 04-15576, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 805 (9th Cir.). [N/R]
A delay in treatment of an ear infection over a
weekend when sick call was not available was not shown to have resulted in any
actual hearing loss, and did not constitute an unconstitutional act of
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Freeman v. Frimpong, No.
3:04cv1546, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10475 (M.D. Pa.). [N/R]
Federal trial court acted erroneously in
dismissing a prisoner's claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated
when he allegedly did not receive any medication for hepatitis C, resulting in
the development of cirrhosis of the liver. The prisoner claimed that he was
first denied treatment because of a policy to only provide treatment to
prisoners already incarcerated for twelve months, and subsequently based on a
policy of providing treatment only if a prisoner would not be discharged within
12 months. Trigo v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, No. 06-20131, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 3576 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner with lupus sufficiently alleged personal
involvement of correctional facility superintendent in alleged failure to
provide him with prescribed medications for his condition, based on the filing
of several grievances which gave the superintendent notice of the problem, and
the alleged failure of the superintendent to take action to remedy it. Claims
against the superintendent in his official capacity, however, were barred by
Eleventh Amendment immunity, as he was a state official. Saxon v. Attica
Medical Department, No. 05-CV-6336, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1243 (W.D.N.Y.).
[N/R]
A doctor's failure to prescribe the same
treatment, orthopedic shoes, recommended by another doctor at another
correctional facility, did not show deliberate indifference to a prisoner's
foot deformity. Additionally, there was no showing that the prisoner's foot condition
subsequently worsened. Bismark v. Fisher, No. 05-10013, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
536 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner stated possibly viable claims for
deliberate indifference to his serious need for medical attention for his back
injury against the sheriff, a doctor, and a nurse. He alleged that he had
communicated with the sheriff via letter to complain about the doctor and nurse
denying him necessary medical attention for his injury, and that the sheriff
knew of their actions, but failed to do anything to remedy the continued denial
of assistance. Woods v. Miller, No. 05-16748, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1595 (11th
Cir.). [N/R]
Refusal of prison and its medical personnel to
provide inmate with a wheelchair after he suffered an injury did not violate
his Eighth Amendment rights. Medical personnel were concerned that the use of a
wheelchair would actually have harmed and weakened him under the circumstances,
resulting in muscle atrophy causing his legs and back to deteriorate, and they
supplied him instead with crutches to use. Callahan v. Poppell, No. 06-6090,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31762 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
Inmate stated a viable claim for inadequate
medical treatment based on alleged delay in provided prescribed special
footwear, causing him to suffer further injury. Bugh v. Grafton Correctional
Institution, No. 06AP-454, 2006 Ohio App. Lexis 6466 (10th Dist.). [N/R]
Federal trial court erroneously rejected
prisoner's claims concerning the denial of the use of his hearing aids while
incarcerated in a special housing unit without considering whether such a
deprivation, by itself, was cruel and unusual punishment. The prisoner argued
that he could not fully "function" without the hearing aids. Wheeler
v. Butler, No. 04-1834, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31026 (2nd Cir.). [N/R]
Medical personnel who provided a
"great" amount of treatment to a prisoner after he suffered an injury
from a fall in the prison kitchen did not act with deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs, and the evidence did not support his argument that
he had been refused needed surgery. Quinn v. Palakovich, No. 06-2182, 2006 U.S.
App. Lexis 27606 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
Two instances in which prisoner was assigned to a
top bunk, despite having a medical authorization for placement in a lower bunk
were insufficient to show a violation of constitutional rights. Williams v.
County of Los Angeles, No. 05-55691, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28085 (9th Cir.).
[N/R]
Prison doctor who allegedly failed to diagnose
and treat inmate's "scabies" could not be liable for "deliberate
indifference" when he conducted several skin biopsies which failed to
reveal that the inmate had "scabies." Deliberate indifference would
only be present had the doctor known or believed that the prisoner had the disorder
and he deliberately refused to treat it, which was not the case. Dusenbery v.
U.S., No. 06-2021, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31242 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
Court could not order defendants in inmate's
federal civil rights lawsuit over alleged inadequate medical treatment to pay
for a medical examination of the prisoner in order to provide him with an
expert medical witness to testify against them, as he requested. The prisoner
could, however, obtain a medical examination if he could pay for such an
expert. Cabrera v. Clarke, No. 4:05cv3121, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66761 (D.
Neb.). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that doctor acted
with deliberate indifference to his diabetes and resulting foot problems,
misdiagnosing it as gout, and resulting in its amputation, was adequate to
state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Dismissal of prior lawsuit
involving the same claims did not bar the present lawsuit, since the first
complaint was dismissed "without prejudice." Smith v. Missouri Dept. of
Corrections, No. 06-1191, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27951 (8th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner showed that there were genuine issues of
material fact as to whether a prison vocation nurse acted with deliberate
indifference to his medical conditions. He claimed that she knew that he needed
to go to the hospital, that he had complaints of swelling and pain in his
testicle, and that a doctor had instructed her to call if his condition did not
improve, but that she failed to provide any treatment. Ware v. Zeller, No.
04-20539, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28180 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that a correctional employee
denied him follow-up care after surgery, and also denied him a prescribed
medication, which put him at risk of death was sufficient to assert a
constitutional claim for inadequate medical treatment. Copenhaver v. Hammer,
No. 1:05-CV-675, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66970 (W.D. Mich.). [N/R]
Prisoner who received nine eye examinations
during an eight-month period after he suffered an eye injury during a handball
game failed to show that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to
his medical needs. All the prisoner's claims showed was that he was in
disagreement with the or treatment offered by optometrists and an
ophthalmologist, which is insufficient for an Eighth Amendment claim. The
prisoner's lawsuit was properly dismissed as frivolous. Thomas v. Brockbank,
No. 05-3480, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25547 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
Despite the fact that he had many more than three
prior "strikes" against him, i.e., lawsuits dismissed as frivolous or
for failure to state a claim, a prisoner was entitled to pursue as a pauper his
lawsuit claiming that he had been denied proper treatment for both Hepatitis C
and prostate cancer, since these claims constituted an allegation of imminent
danger constituting an exception to the "three strikes" rule of 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1915(g). Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, No. 05-5370, 2006 U.S.
App. Lexis 26676 (D.C. Cir.). [N/R]
Federal appeals court could not presume that a prisoner
faced a threat of imminent death or serious physical injury merely because he
claimed that he had been denied his heart medication, when he failed to
describe either the medical condition resulting in the prescription or that he
suffered a physical injury after he did not receive the medication. As a
result, the court upheld the trial judge's decision denying the prisoner, who
had previously had "three strikes," permission to proceed as a pauper
in his federal civil rights lawsuit. Skillern v. Deputy Warden Paul, No.
06-11440, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 24841 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
Delay in providing prisoner with initially
prescribed orthopedic footwear for painful foot condition was not deliberate
indifference when there were disputes about the ultimate source of the
prisoner's pain, and the proper treatment to be utilized. The fact that it was
ultimately determined that the footwear was appropriate did not alter the
result. Feeney v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. 05-2224, 464 F.3d 158 (1st Cir. 2006).
[2006 JB Dec]
Pre-trial detainee failed to show that county
sheriff's policies were inadequate to protect him and others at county
detention facility against the risk of TB infection. Federal appeals court
finds that deliberate indifference is the appropriate standard for claims of
inadequate medical care for both pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners.
Butler v. Fletcher, No. 05-3480, 465 F.3d 340 (8th Cir. 2006). [2006 JB Dec]
Prisoner ultimately determined to be suffering
from irritable bowel syndrome failed to show that prison medical personnel
acted with deliberate indifference in failing to carry out a particular medical
test. There was evidence showing that the test the prisoner thought should have
been performed was not justified by the symptoms he exhibited at the time, and
the prisoner was provided with treatment for the symptoms he did exhibit. Brown
v. Hendershot, No.3:CV-04-1769, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66933 (M.D. Pa.). [N/R]
Cancellation of scheduled liver biopsy after
medical personnel disagreed about its necessity for the treatment of a liver
condition did not show a violation of the prisoner's right to adequate medical
treatment, and was not based on cost, as the plaintiff prisoner claimed.
Hemingway v. Falor, No. 05-4680, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 24464 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
Delay in hip replacement surgery for inmate
suffering from a degenerative hip condition did not constitute deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs when the prisoner himself demanded
that the surgery be performed at a particular hospital, which would have only
been possible after his transfer to another facility, and, during the ensuing
delay, another surgeon recommended against the surgery because of possible
complications. Additionally, the evidence showed that any other delay in the
procedure was, at most negligence, and not deliberate indifference. Williams v.
Wright, No. 05-0257, 162 Fed. Appx. 69 (2nd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Psychiatrist did not violate prisoner's rights by
reporting that he was a "fairly poor" candidate for treatment of his
Hepatitis C with Interferon when the prisoner merely stated his disagreement
with that conclusion, and did not present any evidence that the psychiatrist
chose a "medically unacceptable" course of treatment for his
condition in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Fleming v.
LeFevere, No. 03-06199, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (C.D. Cal. 2006). [N/R]
The possibility that different procedures for
addressing emergency medical procedures at a county jail might have resulted in
a better response to the plaintiff prisoner's emergency did not suffice to show
that the county sheriff provided inadequate training for jail personnel.
Additionally, the procedures he did establish relied primarily on medical
expertise that a contractual medical service company provided. Williams v.
Limestone, No. 06-10957, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 24738 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
Prison doctor was entitled to qualified immunity
on prisoner's claim that he provided inadequate care for his injured leg, based
on the record of repeated examinations, wound cleaning, changing of dressings,
and medications over a period of several months. Possible negligence during a
one-week lapse in antibiotic treatment was insufficient to show deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. Gobert v. Caldwell, No. 05-30820, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 22216 (5th Cir.). [2006 JB Nov]
Prison nurse was not entitled to qualified
immunity on prisoner's claim that she essentially offered him no treatment and
returned him to his cell when he reported severe chest pain, despite his
history of serious heart problems, including a prior heart attack. Easter v.
Powell, No. 04-11332, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25025 (5th Cir.). [2006 JB Nov]
Prison officials did not act with deliberate
indifference to inmate's need for treatment of his Hepatitis C condition when
they provided for ongoing monitoring, and when they took steps to guarantee
further treatment through the established administrative process when his high enzyme
levels warranted further tests and a liver biopsy. The court finds that the
prisoner's own reluctance to participate in a drug treatment program may have
been "partially responsible" for delays in his treatment for
Hepatitis C. Thomas v. Bruce, No. 04-3274, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (D. Kan. 2006).
[N/R]
Prisoner was required, under New York state law,
to submit notarized affidavits verifying his medical malpractice claims against
prison staff for alleged failure to have his injured hand X-rayed on a timely
basis. His failure to do so deprived the New York Court of Claims of
jurisdiction over his lawsuit. Spirles v. State, 814 N.Y.S.2d 327 (A.D. 3rd
Dept. 2006). [N/R]
Minnesota prisoner, in his lawsuit against
correctional doctor and other medical personnel, alleging medical malpractice,
failed to comply with state law requirements of an affidavit from an
appropriate medical expert, and the prisoner did not show any valid excuse for
the failure to satisfy this requirement. Both this and statute of limitations
issues supported the dismissal of all claims against the doctor, and of some
claims against the other defendants. Mercer v. Andersen, No. A05-1103, 715
N.W.2d 114 (Minn. App. 2006). [N/R]
Failure to present expert testimony to support claim
that deliberate indifference to prisoner's need for medical treatment for a
rare autoimmune disease caused his death was "fatal," as a matter of
law, to that claim. Alberson v. Norris, No. 06-1534, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 20784
(8th Cir.). [2006 JP Oct]
Evidence presented would not be sufficient to
allow a reasonable jury to concluded that jail personnel were deliberately
indifferent to the serious medical needs of a prisoner who died as the result
of an acute asthma attack. Pietrafeso v. Lawrence County, No. 05-1038, 05-1096,
452 F.3d 978, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
17225 (8th Cir. 2006). [2006 JP Oct]
The fact that a prisoner's injured knee allegedly
continued to swell and cause him pain did not show that prison medical
personnel acted with deliberate indifference to his needs. The records showed
that a medical test, an MRI, showed that his knee was within "normal
range," and the inmate received treatment, including medication and
injections, as well as a referral to an orthopedic surgeon. Brandner v. First
Correctional Medical, No. 05-3920, 167 Fed. Appx. 328 (3rd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Former prisoner's claim that she received
inadequate medical care while in custody at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks in
Kansas was properly dismissed, since she had no private right of action, as she
sought, for alleged violation of the U.N. Convention Against Torture or under
any federal law relating to the U.S. government's obligations under that
Convention. Renkel v. U.S., No. 05-3420, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 19604 (6th Cir.).
[N/R]
Officers at jail were not entitled to qualified
immunity in lawsuit brought concerning death of prisoner with a heart condition
when they allegedly knew of his serious medical condition, were aware of his
complaints of difficulty breathing and chest pain, but failed to take steps to
provide immediate medical assistance. Gordon v. Frank, No. 05-3981, 2006 U.S.
App. Lexis 18299 (8th Cir.). [2006 JB Sep]
Prison nurse did not act with deliberate indifference in making a prisoner take
psychotropic medications actually prescribed for another prisoner, since that
was at most a negligent mistake, but a jury could find that she acted with
deliberate indifference in leaving him in his cell without immediate medical
attention for three hours after she realized her mistake. Spann v. Roper, No.
05-2721, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 17480 (8th Cir.). [2006 JB Sep]
Sheriff and arresting officer were not liable for death of detainee who died
from self-mutilation in county jail after an arrest for intoxicated driving.
Jailers were also entitled to qualified immunity for their decision to admit
the detainee to the jail rather than sending him to a hospital, as he appeared
calm and they did not know the amount of drugs he had ingested or that he had a
need for immediate medical treatment. They were not entitled, however, to
qualified immunity on the claim that they failed to adequately monitor him
following his intake. Grayson v. Ross, No. 04-3577, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 18061 (8th
Cir.). [2006 JB Sep]
A prisoner suffering from a hernia stated a viable federal civil rights claim
against a private company providing medical services at the prison by alleging
that it was the company's policy to classify any and all umbilical hernias as
elective surgery, which it routinely denied to prisoners, in deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. Williams v. Prison Health Services,
Inc., No. 05-2400, 167 Fed. Appx. 555 (7th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that she reported symptoms of stroke to medical personnel,
including severe head pain, slurred words, and inability to grasp with her
right hand, but was told that her only problem was that she was overweight and
directed to return to her work assignment, would, if true, satisfy both
objective and subjective components of a claim for deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs. Pimentel v. Deboo, No. 3:04CV821, 411 F. Supp. 2d 118
(D. Conn. 2006). [N/R]
Federal prisoner's claim that, after he injured his shoulder, he was not referred
to a specialist or given prescription pain medication were insufficient to
state a federal civil rights claim for inadequate medical care, and amounted,
at most, to negligence in diagnosing his condition or a disagreement over the
proper treatment for his condition. Sereika v. Patel, No. 04 Civ. 8854, 411 F.
Supp. 2d 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
State Commissioner of Department of Corrections was not deliberately
indifferent to prison inmate's serious medical needs and was not liable for his
death from a brain infection. The Commissioner had not personally been involved
in the decisions concerning the inmate's care, and the doctor's conduct, at
most, constituted negligent medical malpractice, not a violation of
constitutional rights. King v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., No.
2030903, 919 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). [N/R]
Prison officials and employees were not deliberately indifferent to the serious
medical needs of a prisoner with an amputated leg, when the record showed that
each of the defendants responded to his grievances and suggested or approved of
a remedy. The fact that certain requested accommodations, such as a concrete
bench or railing, were not provided for him before he was transferred to
another facility was "unfortunate," but did not show the kind of
"criminal recklessness" or "gross negligence" required to
meet the standard of "deliberate indifference" for a federal civil
rights claim. Johnson v. Snyder, No. 04-3620, 444 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2006).
[N/R]
Estate of jail inmate who died from untreated
methadone withdrawal on the sixth day of a ten day sentence for a traffic
offense presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that the
county had a widespread custom or practice of failing to provide timely methadone
treatment to prisoners. Davis v. Carter, No. 05-1695, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
16183 (7th Cir.). [2006 JB Aug]
An alleged one-month delay in x-raying a
prisoner's hand after a nurse tentatively diagnosed him as having a fractured
finger was not shown to be anything more than negligence, which was
insufficient for a federal constitutional claim. Additionally, federal appeals
court finds, no reasonably jury could find that correctional employees used
excessive force against the inmate during the incident that led to his
injuries, when he continued to assault the officers even after he was
restrained, and was subsequently criminally convicted for his actions. Johnson
v. Hamilton, No. 05-1453, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16767 (8th Cir.). [2006 JB Aug]
Former prisoner suffering from Lou Gehrig's
Disease presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues as to whether
prison officials engaged in disability discrimination against him by failing to
adequately accommodate his needs. Claimed problems with his medical treatment,
however, did not rise to the level of disability discrimination. Kiman v. New
Hampshire Dep't of Corr., No. 05-1998, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16189 (1st Cir.).
[2006 JB Aug]
Correctional officials did not violate prisoner's
Eighth Amendment rights by stopping his treatment for Hepatitis C when they
found that he no longer tested positive for the virus. Scheckells v. Goord, No.
04 Civ. 7776, 423 F. Supp. 2d 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
Prison administrators were not shown to have
known of prisoner's requests for medical treatment for back pain prior to his
initial doctor's appointment, so they could not be said to have acted with
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Mayo v. Snyder, No. 05-1775,
166 Fed. Appx. 845 (7th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Prison nurses' alleged failure to use gloves when
giving an inmate medications was insufficient to establish a claim for cruel
and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff prisoner also
failed to show that prison medical personnel acted with deliberate indifference
in denying him a wheelchair, given evidence that the inmate
"exaggerated" his purported inability to walk, and the absence of
specific records identifying a reason for his supposed difficulty doing so. Todd
v. Walters, No. 05-1020, 166 Fed. Appx. 590 (3rd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Even if the treatment provided for a prisoner's
Hepatitis C and other complaints were arguably inadequate, they were not so
seriously inadequate as to be shocking to the conscience so as to constitute
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Evidence showed that the
denial of medication for the Hepatitis C was based on a determination that such
treatment would be adversely impacted by the plaintiff's prior drug use. Macleod
v. Kern, No. CIV. A.03-11483, 424 F. Supp. 2d 260 (D. Mass. 2006). [N/R]
Even if prescription medication prisoner was
given for his asthma caused gastrointestinal bleeding, there was insufficient
evidence that prison doctors knew that use of the medicine created an
unacceptable risk of such injuries but ignored that risk. Holman v. Horn, No.
05-3824, 170 Fed. Appx. 1 (7th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
An alleged four-month delay in performing surgery
for the repair of a prisoner's broken arm was not deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need, even when it allegedly resulted in the need to re-break
the arm and free a compressed nerve. A doctor exercised medical judgment in
deciding that a cast would promote the proper healing of the arm, and the injury
to the nerve was not an "inevitable" result of this decision. Haley
v. Feinerman, No. 04-3823, 168 Fed. Appx. 113 (7th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
The waiver of sovereign immunity by Pennsylvania
under state law for dangerous conditions on governmental property did not apply
to a Pennsylvania prisoner's lawsuit against the state in federal court
asserting a state law negligence claim for injuries he allegedly suffered when
his Achilles tendon was torn by a pipe protruding from his cell floor. The
statute containing the waiver itself said that it did not waive the state's
Eleventh Amendment immunity, preventing it from being sued for damages in
federal court. Prisoner also failed to show that prison officials acted with
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs following his injuries, as
required for a federal civil rights claim. Brooks v. Beard, No. 05-3196, 167
Fed. Appx. 923 (3rd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that officials violated his due
process rights by requiring him to agree to take anti-psychotic medications
specified by a program coordinator of a sex offender treatment program as a
condition of parole was not frivolous, and should not have been dismissed on
that basis. The prisoner stated a possible claim for infringement on his liberty
interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of anti-psychotic medications.
Bundy v. Stommel, No. 05-1099, 168 Fed. Appx. 870 (10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
FONT
COLOR="#000000"> Update: federal
appeals court, in light of recent Supreme Court decision allowing states and
state agencies to be sued for damages for disability discrimination also
violating constitutional rights, orders further proceedings on paraplegic
inmate's disability discrimination damage claims. Miller v. King, No. 02-13348,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 12109 (11th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Federal appeals court allows class action
challenging conditions of confinement for civilly committed "Sexually
Violent Predators" in California to proceed on most claims, including
claims involving procedural and substantive due process, privacy, excessive
force, access to courts, unlawful retaliation for grievances or lawsuits, and
forced medication in non-emergency situations. Hydrick v. Hunter, No. 03-56712,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 13497 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Female prisoner's claim that delayed labor,
caused by improper medical care, caused the stillbirth of her viable fetus was
sufficient to constitute a "physical injury" to her satisfying the
physical injury requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e). That statutory provision, barring the pursuit of a
federal civil rights claim for mental distress unaccompanied by physical
injury, did not bar the prisoner's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims in these
circumstances. Clifton v. Eubank, No. 00-CV-2555, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1243 (D.
Colo. 2006). [N/R]
Under Kentucky state law, a county jail, rather
than the state, had the financial responsibility of providing indigent
prisoners with psychotropic medications. Osborne v. Commonwealth, No.
2004-SC-000566, 185 S.W.2d 645 (Ky. 2006). [N/R]
If, as prisoner alleged, a nurse supervisor
instructed other prison nurses not to provide him with his prescribed pain
medication following a tooth extraction because of his attempted escape effort,
this could constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Cook
v. Pueppke, No. 1:05CV0105, 421 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (E.D. Mo. 2006). [N/R]
Evidence was sufficient to show that prison
officials acted with deliberate indifference in denying prisoner needed medical
treatment for a degenerative back condition. Faraday v. Commissioner of
Correction, No. 26340, 894 A.2d 1048 (Conn. App. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner did not show deliberate indifference to
his knee injury by prison medical personnel, and his complaint amounted to
nothing more than mere disagreement with the particular treatment medical
personnel decided to provide, which is insufficient for a constitutional claim.
Burgos v. Alves, No. 04-CV-65131, 418 F. Supp. 2d 263 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that a delay in providing him
with surgery a medical specialist recommended for his shoulder injury caused
him extreme pain, loss of grip, and a loss of feeling was sufficient, if true,
to constitute a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and
unusual punishment. Sparks v. Rittenhouse, No. 04-1086, 164 Fed. Appx. 712
(10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Federal pre-trial detainee's lawsuit, claiming
inadequate medical treatment resulting in various injuries at several county
jails and federal prisons, was properly dismissed, both for failure to exhaust
available administrative remedies, and because the facts alleged, if true,
constituted only negligence, which is insufficient to state a claim for
violation of federal civil rights. Acosta v. U.S. Marshals Serv., No. 05-1733,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 9882 (1st Cir. April 19, 2006) [2006 JB Jun]
Doctor's alleged failure to provide adequate
treatment for detainee's heart condition, resulting in permanent heart damage,
may have been medical malpractice, but there was no evidence that he knew about
and failed to treat that heart condition or "consciously disregarded"
his medical needs, barring a claim for violation of constitutional rights. Self
v. Crum, No. 04-1037, 439 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) [2006 JB Jun]
Federal appeals court reverses trial court's
dismissal of prisoner's claim that his rights were violated when he did not
receive prescribed blood pressure monitoring or his high blood pressure
medication for a nine-day period. Munn v. Toney, No. 05-1320, 433 F.3d 1087
(8th Cir. 2006) [2006 JB Jun]
Prisoner's personal belief that his penile pain
could be relieved by circumcision was insufficient, under the Eighth Amendment,
to require the Wisconsin Department of Corrections to make arrangements to have
the procedure performed for free. Adsit v. Kaplan, No. 05-C-579-C, 410 F. Supp.
2d 776 (W.D. Wis. 2006). [N/R]
County detention facility did not act with
deliberate indifference to detainee's medical problems. While the medical care
provided for his complaint of a broken ankle was not always what he desired, he
was examined when admitted to the facility, given pain killers, and medically
examined on eleven subsequent occasions, with the staff responding to his
medical needs each time. Redd v. Conway, No. 05-12337, 160 Fed. Appx. 858 (11th
Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner raised possibly viable claims as to
whether correctional officers acted with deliberate indifference, after he had
surgery, to his need for pain medications and pillows for his injured hand.
Additionally, there was a factual issue as to whether the total exclusion of
physical therapy equipment prescribed for the prisoner was actually justified
by legitimate security concerns, barring summary judgment for correctional
defendants. Prewitt v. Roos, No. 03-35874, 160 Fed. Appx. 609 (9th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
Prisoner's claim that doctors at three different
prisons, without evaluating his complaints of severe pain in his shoulder and
back, both of which had been operated on, failed to consider another doctor's
suggestion that he undergo spinal fusion surgery, and instead merely provided
pain medication, could, if true, constitute deliberate indifference to a
serious medical condition. Medrano v. Smith, No. 05-1092, 161 Fed. Appx. 596
(7th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Requirement, under Prison Litigation Reform Act,
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), that a prisoner exhaust available administrative
remedies prior to filing a federal civil rights lawsuit applies to prisoners
held in a privately-run state prison. Federal appeals court upholds dismissal,
without prejudice, of a prisoner's claim that he had been denied needed medical
treatment, based on his failure to complete all of a privately-run prison's
four-step grievance procedure. Bias v. Cornell Corrections, Inc., No. 04-6353,
159 Fed. Appx. 868 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
If jailers significantly delayed summoning an
ambulance for prisoner exhibiting "obvious" symptoms of heart attack,
who had previously told them he was a heart patient, they violated his clearly
established constitutional rights. Plemmons v. Roberts, No. 05-3110, 439 F.3d
818 (8th Cir. 2006). [2006 JB May]
Prison medical personnel who denied prisoner
suffering from arthritis soft-soled shoes for his aching feet and delayed
renewal of his prescribed pain medication did not violate his rights. Evidence
showed, at most, a difference of opinion concerning the proper treatment, and
not deliberate indifference. Norfleet v. Gehrke, No. 05-1237, 439 F.3d 392 (7th
Cir. 2006). [2006 JB May]
Federal appeals court finds a triable issue of
fact on whether a county had inadequate policies regarding the training of jail
medical personnel as to how to respond to the fall of a medically unstable
prisoner, a prisoner's refusal of needed medical treatment, or the need to
conduct a prompt assessment on whether such a prisoner should be transferred to
another facility with more medical resources. Civil rights claim against county
reinstated in lawsuit over death of 71-year-old prisoner from cardiac arrest.
Long v. County of Los Angeles, No. 04-55463, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 7552 (9th
Cir.). [2006 JB May]
Prisoner failed to show either that correctional
officers caused his injuries from assault by another prisoner by failing to
adequately protect him or were deliberately indifferent to his injuries
following the assault. Pinkston v. Madry, No. 03-2973 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 6108
(7th Cir.). [2006 JB May]
State prison officials did not violate diabetic
prisoner's rights by requiring a prison to serve a "heart healthy"
diet to all inmates. The prisoner did not show that the diet was medically
improper for a diabetic or that the diet was the cause of diabetic complications
he allegedly suffered. Baird v. Alameida, No. CV 02-06887, 407 F. Supp. 2d 1134
(C.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
Failure by jail nurse to be "more
persistent" when pretrial detainee did not respond when she called his
name twice to receive his seizure medication, and alleged failure to do
anything else to make sure that he received his medicine did not show that she
acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. It was, at
most, negligence, which could not be the basis for a federal civil rights claim
over his subsequent death from a seizure. County of El Paso v. Dorado, No.
08-03-00421-CV, 180 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. App. El Paso 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner with an allergy to elastic who suffered
a "minimal" skin irritation from contact with elastic contained in
his underwear did not show that prison officials and medical personnel acted
with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Evidence showed that he
was provided medical attention and treatment, and the mere fact that he
disagreed with the treatment provided did not alter the attempt to provide for
his needs. Martin v. Donaghue, No. 3:06CV007, 407 F. Supp. 2d 984 (N.D. Ind.
2006). [N/R]
Diabetic prisoner failed to show that prison
doctors were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when there was
evidence that they had prescribed insulin for him, adjusted his insulin levels,
and provided him with necessary instruments to perform self-monitoring of his
blood sugar levels. Boomer v. Deperio, No. 03-CV-6348, 405 F. Supp. 2d 259
(W.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Jail prisoner who fell from a top bunk and
injured himself after a possible seizure presented a genuine issue of fact as
to whether jail employees were deliberately indifferent in failing to properly
administer his prescribed anti-seizure medication and to accommodate his
illness by assigning him to a bottom bunk. Phillips v. Jasper, No. 04-2524,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 3442 (8th Cir.). [2006 JB Apr]
Sheriff was not liable for death of jail detainee
who had a heart attack. Medical intake forms did not reveal any prior heart
problems, and there was no evidence that the sheriff was personally aware of
any serious medical needs of the detainee, disregarded them, or inadequately
trained or supervised his employees in a manner which caused the detainee's
death. Vaughn v. Greene County, No. 04-3916, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 3801 (8th
Cir.). [2006 JB Apr]
Prisoner presented sufficient evidence from which
a jury could find that a prison doctor and a warden were deliberately
indifferent to his need to have his fractured right thumb placed in a permanent
cast by an orthopedic specialist, as instructed by a hospital emergency room
doctor. Jett v. Penner, No. 04-15882, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5891 (9th Cir.).
[2006 JB Apr]
Prisoner stated a viable 8th Amendment claim by
alleging that a prison doctor gave him an "unapproved" drug with
potentially serious side effects, which caused him to vomit whenever he ate.
The prisoner also allegedly suffered from priapism as a result, a persistent
painful erection of the penis without sexual desire or arousal. Adams v. Durai,
#05-2175, 153 Fed. Appx. 972 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's estate, by asserting that prison
medical personnel were deliberately indifferent for months to his medical
condition, including persistent sinus problems, while his weight dropped from
190 to 138 lbs. stated a claim for violation of his 8th Amendment rights and
could be the basis of liability for his subsequent death from an intracerebral
abscess caused by bacterial sinusitis. Billops v. Sandoval, No. Civ.A.
H-05-0530, 401 S. Supp. 2d 766 (S.D. Tex. 2005). [N/R]
Claim that county jail provided inadequate
medical care to pre-trial detainee who subsequently died of meningitis was
sufficient to support a lawsuit for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
His estate had standing to sue on behalf of his surviving next of kin,
including his spouse, and an affidavit by a medical professional as to the
merits of the case, required under Illinois law in medical malpractice cases,
was not required in the estate's federal civil rights lawsuit. Thomas v. Cook
County Sheriff, No. 04C3563, 401 F. Supp. 2d 867 (N.D. Ill. 2005). [N/R]
Warden was not entitled to summary judgment on
prisoner's claim that he violated his right to religious freedom by prohibiting
him from wearing religious garments as an Orthodox Jew while being transported
outside the facility for eye surgery. Factual issues existed as to whether the
warden's action was reasonable in light of security requirements. There were
also factual issues as to whether the prisoner suffered damages because of the
resulting delay in the eye surgery. Boles v. Neet, No. CIV03CV00557, 402 F.
Supp. 2d 1237 (D. Colo. 2005). [N/R]
Diabetic prisoner's foot injuries, burns from
participating in Native American religious sweat lodge purification ceremony,
only worsened and necessitated amputation after he refused to comply with
medical personnel and undertook to provide his own care. He failed to present
sufficient evidence, therefore, to support a claim for violation of his
constitutional right to adequate medical treatment. Gibson v. Weber, No.
05-1888 433 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 2006) [2006 JB Mar]
Doctors' decision to provide only non-surgical
treatment for prisoner's inguinal hernia was not deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. Trial judge's decision not to provide plaintiff prisoner
with an appointed lawyer was not an abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Doughty,
No. 04-11392006 U.S. App. Lexis 1060 (7th Cir.). [2006 JB Mar]
Schizophrenic prisoner who murdered Jeffrey
Dahmer and two other persons failed to show that prison officials at Supermax
facility knew that the heat in his cell, the constant illumination there, and
the denial of his request for audiotapes to "still the voices" in his
head were making his mental illness worse. Scarver v. Litscher, No. 05-2999,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 1135 (7th Cir.). [2006 JB Mar]
Individual employees of privately run prison were
not subject to a federal civil rights Bivens lawsuit for allegedly providing
inadequate medical care to a diabetic federal prisoner. Holly v. Scott, No.
05-6287, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 685 (4th Cir.).[2006 JB Mar]
Prison's denial of inmate's request for access to
weight training facilities did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights in the
absence of any showing that the official making the denial knew that such
weight training was allegedly necessary to treat the prisoner's femoral
neuropathy and other leg ailments. Reimann v. Frank, No. 05-C-501, 397 F. Supp.
2d 1059 (W.D. Wis. 2005). [N/R]
Sheriff was not personally liable for alleged
denial of medications and medical treatment to jail detainee when there was no
evidence that the sheriff knew either about the detainee's need for prescribed
medicine or medical treatment, and no evidence which showed that the alleged
deprivations occurred because of any policy or procedure established by the
sheriff. Tatum v. Simpson, No. CIV A05CV00669, 399 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (D. Colo.
2005). [N/R]
In a medical malpractice lawsuit brought against
prison medical personnel under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs.
1346(b), 2671-80, a prisoner failed to prove that they were negligent when they
failed to diagnose and treat his deep vein thrombosis. The prisoner complained
of one of the symptoms of suchan illness--shortness of breath--only once before
an attack resulted in him being hospitalized, so that there was no violation of
applicable medical standards. Goines v. Pugh, No. 04-1394, 152 Fed. Appx. 750
(10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Despite a detainee's alleged intoxication, jail
personnel's failure to either transfer him to the hospital or at least contact
an on-call nurse was unreasonable for purposes of a Fourteenth Amendment claim
for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs when the detainee insisted
that he was suffering from a serious medical condition and needed assistance.
His estate could proceed with its claim against individual personnel for the
detainee's death from an allegedly untreated heart attack, but there was not
proof of an official policy or custom causing the deprivation which could
support liability on the part of the city or county. Hollenbaugh v. Maurer, No.
5:05-CV-207, 397 F. Supp. 2d 894 (N.D. Ohio 2005). [N/R]
Utah prisoner's lawsuit claiming that prison
officials failed to provide surgery for problems with his testicles was
improperly dismissed, as the facts he alleged, if true, could support an
inference of deliberate indifference to a serious medical problem. Martinez v.
Garden, No. 05-4019, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 27179 (10th Cir.). [2006 JB Feb]
Diabetic prisoners who allegedly suffered
amputations because of failure to receive adequate medical care for their
illness were barred from pursuing federal civil rights claims when they failed
to use a prison's formal grievance procedure to complain about their treatment.
Their contention that medical personnel had encouraged them to instead pursue
any complaints directly with them was no excuse when no one prevented them from
using the grievance procedure. Gibson v. Weber, No. 04-3932, 431 F.3d 339 (8th
Cir. 2005). [2006 JB Feb]
Correctional officers were not entitled to
qualified immunity on claim that they continued to use force against detainee
after they had subdued him, resulting in his death from positional asphyxia.
They were also not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim that they waited
fourteen minutes after he became unconscious and stopped breathing, to summon
medical assistance. Bozeman v. Orum, No. 04-11073, 422 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.
2005). [2006 JB Feb]
Jail staff members did not act with deliberate
indifference to the medical needs of a pretrial detainee who died while
suffering from acute drug withdrawal with excessive vomiting. Detainee was
provided with immediate medical attention when his symptoms occurred. Sylvester
v. City of Newark, No. 03-4872, 120 Fed. Appx. 419 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Detention officers' alleged actions of ignoring
prisoner's requests for medical care for two full days after he experienced
pain, vomiting, and nausea would be adequate to state an Eighth Amendment claim
for liability for prisoner's subsequent ruptured appendix. Boyd v. Robeson
County, No. COA03-1222, 621 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. App. 2005). [N/R]
Estate of pretrial detainee who died from heart
attack while incarcerated failed to show that city failed to provide him with
adequate medical care. Record showed that detainee was taken to the hospital
after he complained of chest pains. Estate of Harbin v. City of Detroit, No.
03-2486, 147 Fed. Appx. 566 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Inmate's disagreement with the reasonableness of
a physician-assistant's diagnosis and treatment of him prior to his suffering a
stroke was insufficient to show deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. Prisoner could, however, pursue claims against facility nurse who
allegedly denied him medical treatment altogether, based on disputed material
issues of fact as to her state of mind at the time. Marcotte v. Monroe Corrections
Complex, No. C04-1925, 394 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (W.D. Wash. 2005). [N/R]
Mere delay in vaccinating inmate suffering from
Hepatitis C with Hepatitis A and B vaccines was not a violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Inmate did not get Hepatitis A or B before he was vaccinated, and
his alleged "worry" and "distress" from the fear that he
would was insufficient for a constitutional violation. Wood v. Idaho Department
of Corrections, No. CV04-99 391 F. Supp. 2d 852 (D. Idaho 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner who claimed that his treatment for
symptoms of a heart attack was delayed failed to show that the delay had any
detrimental effect on him, and therefore could not pursue a federal civil
rights claim against prison officials and employees. Laughlin v. Schriro, No.
04-2101, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26648 (8th Cir.). [2006 JB Jan]
Prison medical director was entitled to dismissal
of inmate's federal civil rights lawsuit concerning treatment for old bullet
wounds which resulted in four bullets lodged in his body, based on prisoner's
failure to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing litigation. Burrell
v. Powers, No. 04-3745, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26902 (7th Cir.). [2006 JB Jan]
Texas prison system did not violate transsexual
prisoner's constitutional right to adequate medical treatment by denying a
request for hormone therapy. Praylor v. Tx. Dep't of Criminal Justice, No.
04-50854, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 25043 (5th Cir.). [2006 JB Jan]
Prisoner on furlough from county jail was still
in the county's custody, so that the county was liable for his reasonable
medical expenses if he was indigent. North Brevard County Hospital District v.
Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, #5D04-2178, 899 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.
App. 5th Dist. 2005). [N/R]
Complaint about medical care that amounted only
to a disagreement about the manner of treatment received was insufficient to
state a constitutional claim for deliberate indifference against a prison
doctor. Shell v. Brzezniak, No. 00-CV-61521, 365 F. Supp. 2d 362 (W.D.N.Y.
2005). [N/R]
Prisoner who allegedly told medical staff at
prison that he could not work because of a prior gunshot injury failed to show
that they responded with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Prison medical staff used a medical team to evaluate the prisoner, and
conducted a physical examination, and once he complained of a spasm, they
provided prompt attention, including pain medications and adjustment of his
work status. Randle v. Webster, No. 04-2239, 124 Fed. Appx. 439 (7th Cir.
2005). [N/R]
Expert witness testimony that a federal prison
staff had deviated from the accepted standards of medical care and that this
deviation had caused a prisoner's death was necessary in order to hold the U.S.
government liable for the death of a prisoner from a respiratory illness. In
the absence of such evidence, the trial court properly dismissed a medical
malpractice lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(b).
Davis v. U.S., No. 04-5782, 143 Fed. Appx. 371 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
In lawsuit claiming that county failed to provide
adequate medical care to mentally ill prisoners, a report by a consulting
expert retained by the county to evaluate health services and programs at the
county's jails was not protected from discovery under the work products
doctrine protecting materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. The
expert was not asked to investigate any particular claims but rather to help
the county develop long range planning and analysis of its health care needs.
There was no evidence that the county's outside litigation attorney was
involved in or directed the preparation of the report. Mims v. Dallas County,
No. 3-04-CV-2754, 230 F.R.D. 479 (N.D. Tex. 2005). [N/R]
Nurse who allegedly failed to perform any
evaluation at all of prisoner who came to infirmary reporting severe chest
pains could be liable for violation of the constitutional right to adequate
medical treatment, based on subsequent finding that prisoner suffered a heart attack.
Mata v. Saiz, No. 03-1247, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 22746 (10th Cir.). [2005 JB
Dec]
Prisoner's mere disagreement with doctors who
decided that he was not a viable candidate for a liver transplant or surgery on
his umbilical hernia was insufficient to show deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. Prisoner was also barred from pursuing deliberate
indifference claims against prison officials who were not personally involved
in making decisions concerning his medical treatment. Horton v. Ward, No.
03-6306, 123 Fed. Appx. 368 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
Doctor's alleged inadequate treatment of diabetic
prisoner's fractured hip, if true, only amounted, at most, to negligence, and
was insufficient to show either disability discrimination or a federal civil
rights violation. Medical treatment decisions, a federal appeals court states,
do not ordinarily fall within the scope of federal disability discrimination
statutes. Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corporation of America, No. 03-5029, 403
F.2d 1134 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
Detainee suffering from paranoid schizophrenia,
acute psychosis, impulse-control disorder, and "polysubstance abuse"
could not assert disability discrimination claims since his impairments,
because they could be corrected "or mitigated" by medication, did not
constitute disabilities. Jail personnel did not use excessive force in using
pepper spray to subdue him when he actively resisted his transfer to a hospital
for treatment, and did not violate his right to receive adequate medical
attention. Atwell v. Hart County, Kentucky, No. 03-6421, 122 Fed. Appx. 215
(6th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
Jail detainee was excused from having to exhaust
jail grievance procedures before suing for alleged denial of medical care and
treatment for her broken arm, when she presented evidence that the jail had a
"flat rule" that complaints concerning medical treatment were
"not grievable." Rancher v. Franklin County, Ky., No. 04-5220, 122
Fed. Appx. 240 (6th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
Pretrial detainee's placement in a jail cell with
another prisoner known to be infected with Hepatitis C was insufficient to
constitute deliberate indifference to the detainee's health, as Hepatitis C is
not spread through airborne transmission or casual contact. It is, instead,
spread only through an exchange of bodily fluids, and the infected cellmate had
no history or violent or risky behavior which would increase the likelihood of
that happening. McMahan v. Wilder, No. 04-7115, 131 Fed. Appx. 125 (10th Cir.
2005). [N/R]
Diabetic prisoner's assertion that prison medical
personnel only allowed him to test his own blood glucose level once a month did
not establish deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. A mere
disagreement with medical personnel as to the proper treatment for his
condition could not be the basis for a constitutional claim. Coleman v. Beard,
No. 04-4250, 131 Fed. Appx. 10 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
U. S. Supreme Court vacated a temporary stay
order issued by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that prevented a Missouri
prison inmate from obtaining an abortion. The Missouri prisoner, who was
pregnant when incarcerated on a parole violation, had obtained an order from a
federal trial court requiring the state to provide access to an abortion by
providing transportation to a clinic 80 miles away, despite a Department of
Corrections policy under which such transportation is not provided for
abortions that the Department does not deem "medically necessary."
The prisoner reportedly planned to pay for the abortion herself. The Supreme
Court action, which was a brief two-sentence order, with no dissents, had the
effect of reinstating the trial court's order. Crawford v. Roe, No. 05A333,
2005 U.S. Lexis 7841, 74 U.S.L.W. 3270. [N/R]
Pennsylvania prisoner's claim that prison doctor
was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, including back pain
and partial loss of sensation in his toes and lower legs, was frivolous. The
record showed that the prisoner was evaluated by various medical personnel,
received several prescription medications, and underwent an electrocardiograph
examination (EKG). The failure to refer the prisoner to a specialist or a local
hospital did not show deliberate indifference. The doctor's alleged failure to
inform the prisoner of the possible side effects of the medication was, at
most, negligence, and could not be the basis for a federal civil rights claim.
Jetter v. Beard, No. 04-1976, 130 Fed. Appx. 523 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Detainee's allegations that her appendicitis
remained essentially untreated for five days, until it ruptured and became
gangrenous adequately stated a claim for violation of her Eighth Amendment
rights. Detention officers, if her version of the events were true, ignored her
requests for medical assistance for two of those days despite symptoms of
severe pain, vomiting, and nausea. Boyd v. Robeson County, No. COA03-1222, 615
S.E.2d 296 (N.C. App. 2005). [2005 JB Nov]
Prisoner with prior leg injury from
pre-incarceration motorcycle accident did not show that prison staff acted with
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs during his twelve hour
placement in a "strip cage," when whatever discomfort or injuries he
allegedly suffered while there were evidently not significant enough for him to
even mention to medical staff on the day of his release from the cage or two
days later. Jarriett v. Wilson, No. 03-4196, 414 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2005).
[2005 JB Nov]
While prisoner's partial paralysis following a
stroke might have justified his failure to file a grievance concerning his
medical treatment within fourteen days as required by prison rules, he failed
to explain why he waited almost two years before filing a grievance. His
federal civil rights lawsuit, therefore, was properly dismissed for failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies. Williams v. Comstock, 04-6453, 2005
U.S. App. Lexis 21086 (2nd Cir.). [2005 JB Nov].
A jail nurse who allegedly took a prisoner's
blood without his consent was entitled to absolute immunity in the prisoner's
federal civil rights lawsuit when she took the blood under a facially valid
warrant authorizing her actions and seeking evidence for purposes of use in his
criminal prosecution. Boatner v. Hinds, No. 05-1320, 137 Fed. Appx. 499 (3rd
Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner was not entitled to reconsideration of a
trial court's denial of his motion to set aside his prior settlement agreement
in a federal civil rights lawsuit concerning the alleged inadequacy of his
medical care, one of the terms of which required him to release his claims then
pending in another federal civil rights lawsuit. The trial court's order
dismissing the settled case without prejudice subject to dismissal with
prejudice when the parties filed an stipulation to that effect was a final
order for purposes of appeal, even though the stipulation was never filed. As
the settlement occurred in 2003, and he first filed his motion to set it aside
in March of 2003, his motion for reconsideration of the denial of the motion,
filed in June 2004, was untimely and could only be considered if filed within
ten business days. Holly v. Patrianakos, No. 04-3031, 137 Fed. Appx. 883 (7th
Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Investigations by the Washington state Department
of Corrections into alleged medical misconduct by prison medical staff were not
carried out for purposes of "law enforcement" and therefore were not
exempt from disclosure to the press and public as law enforcement investigative
records under the state's public disclosure act. Prison Legal News, Inc. v.
Department of Corrections, No. 74890-0, 115 P.3d 316 (Wash. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that his rights were violated
when prison officials had him undergo a 2-hour transport to another prison's
medical facility, rather than being taken to a local hospital for treatment was
a lawsuit about prison conditions subject to the exhaustion of remedies
requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. In this
case the prisoner failed to file a grievance concerning the incident and that
failure was not excused by his claim that his blood sugar level was "out
of control" at the time of the incident. McCray v. First State Medical
System, No. CIV. 04-173, 379 F. Supp. 2d 635 (D. Del. 2005). [N/R]
Prison officials did not act with deliberate
indifference to prisoner's serious medical needs when they allegedly were
negligent in failing to determine that his medical condition warranted surgery,
when his condition was repeatedly treated. Negligence alone cannot be the basis
for a federal civil rights lawsuit. Trujillo v. Hobbs, #03-50885, 137 Fed.
Appx. 663 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
A one-day delay in providing pain medication to
an inmate injured in an attack by another prisoner was not sufficient to show
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The prisoner, who
received treatment by the prison doctor, and was subsequently referred to an
optometrist, ophthalmologist, neurologist, and ear, nose and throat specialist,
also could not show that his subsequent medical care for his injuries was
inadequate. The record showed that he received surgery on his nose, pain
medicine, x-rays, and a CT scan over a 3-year period of time following the
incident. His mere difference of opinion concerning the proper treatment of his
injuries did not show that the treatment provided was inadequate. The prisoner
also failed to show that prison officials violated his rights by failing to
protect him from the attack by another prisoner, which occurred during a sex
offender treatment program's group meeting, since that attack was not
foreseeable. Van Court v. Lehman, #04-35815, 137 Fed. Appx. 948 (9th Cir.
2005). [N/R]
Prison nurse did not act with deliberate
indifference in failing to provide attention to prisoner sooner for his chest
pains, and who may have been experiencing a heart attack, when the evidence was
undisputed that she was working on another patient at the time he arrived, and
he was able to walk into the infirmary without assistance and to speak without
apparent difficulty. Turner v. Goord, No. 03CV64011, 376 F. Supp. 2d 321
(W.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner who suffered a miscarriage at a county
detention facility while waiting for a transfer to a state prison adequately
alleged deliberate indifference to her condition to make summary judgment for
the defendants inappropriate. Pool v. Sebastian County, No. 04-2799, 2005 U.S.
App. Lexis 17489 (8th Cir.). [2005 JB Oct]
A mere disagreement between prison medical personnel
and a prisoner concerning the treatment for his seizures did not show
deliberate indifference to the prisoner's serious medical needs in violation of
the Eighth Amendment. The prisoner also failed to show that officers used
excessive force in employing shackles to restrain him during his transport from
the prison to the hospital and during his hospital stay. Taggart v. MacDonald,
No. 04-35493, 131 Fed. Appx. 544, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 8858 (9th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
Prisoner with a gastrointestinal problem which
substantially limited his eating was entitled to pursue both his Eighth
Amendment and disability discrimination claims based on the failure of a prison
classification committee to recommend his transfer to another facility with an
acute care hospital despite orders from his doctor that he required such care.
Appeals court also finds that there were genuine issues of material fact as to
whether the prison failed to adequately accommodate the prisoner's eating
disability, barring summary judgment on claims for money damages under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq. Scott v.
Garcia, No. CIV. 00-1849, 370 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (S.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
California health care manager was not entitled
to qualified immunity in lawsuit by prisoner with Hepatitis C claiming that a
one year delay in providing a liver biopsy after it was approved constituted
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. If the facts were as the
prisoner claimed, this action would violate clearly established law. Tatum v.
Winslow, #04-15557, 122 Fed. Appx. 309 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Sep]
Cost alone, federal trial court holds, could not
be a basis for denying a California prisoner evaluation for a possible liver
transplant when state medical programs did provide such care for
non-incarcerated indigent citizens. Rosado v. Alameida, No. 03CV1110, 349 F.
Supp. 2d 1340 (S.D. Cal. 2004). [2005 JB Sep]
Doctor's alleged failure to follow an
orthopedist's recommendation that a prisoner be referred to a physical
therapist in order to prevent his osteoporosis from progressing could only
have, at most, amounted to negligence, and could not be the basis for a federal
civil rights lawsuit for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
Faison v. Rosado, No. 04-14315, 129 Fed. Appx. 490 (11th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
The mere claim that the prisoner suffered
"excruciating pain" from an ankle injury was not sufficient to show
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, when the record showed that
the injury was not one requiring immediate medical attention, and that he was
treated for foot and ankle problems at least once a week for a month before and
after the alleged injury, and provided with housing and work restrictions
accommodating his condition. Day v. Massingill, No. 04-40500, 129 Fed. Apx. 124
(5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that there was a four-day delay
in providing him with treatment for an injury after he fell in a jail's shower,
at most, showed negligence, and not a basis for a federal constitutional claim.
Any negligence claims were barred by sovereign immunity under South Dakota
state law. Dowty v. Tarrell, No. CIV.04-5028, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (D.S.D.
2005). [N/R]
Prison officials did not show deliberate
indifference to prisoner's health based on a one and one-half day delay between
his first complaining of "flue-like" symptoms and his diagnosis of
and treatment for pneumonia. Wynn v. Mundo, No. 1:04CV365, 367 F. Supp. 2d 832
(M.D.N.C. 2005). [N/R]
Thirteen-day alleged delay in providing inmate with aspirin
for his headache, standing alone, did not constitute deliberate indifference to
a serious medical need sufficient for a federal civil rights claim. Negron v.
Gillespie, No. 03CA1977, 111 P.3d 556 (Colo. App. 2005). [N/R]
New York correctional officials who denied
prisoner medication for his Hepatitis C unanimously recommended by his treating
physicians because of policy denying such treatment to prisoners who showed
signs of substance abuse in the past two years could reasonably be found by a
jury to have acted with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Johnson v. Wright, No. 04-3234, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 12428 (2nd Cir. 2005).
[2005 JB Aug]
Federal appeals court reinstates prisoner's claim
that prison employees acted with deliberate indifference to his vomiting and
severe heartburn for several years, resulting in his condition becoming worse
until he was diagnosed with an esophageal ulcer. Greeno v. Daley, No. 01-4119,
2005 U.S. App. Lexis 13125 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Aug]
Prisoner diagnosed with Hepatitis C adequately
stated a claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment by alleging that he was not provided with
treatment or a liver biopsy after a lab report showed abnormally high liver
enzyme levels which might indicate the need for a biopsy. Thomas v. Bruce, No.
04-3368, 125 Fed. Appx. 964 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
New Mexico prisoner who was pursuing federal
civil rights lawsuit over alleged deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs was not required to comply with the provisions of the New Mexico
Medical Malpractice Act, which does not govern claims not based on acts of
malpractice. Cordray v. County of Lincoln, No. CIV03-0627, 320 F. Supp. 2d 1171
(D.N.M. 2004). [N/R]
Two officers were not entitled to summary
judgment on claim of deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of
insulin-dependent diabetic prisoner when they allegedly had knowledge of her
condition. Prisoner failed to show, however, that the city had a custom of
denying medical treatment to pre-arraignment detainees. Garretson v. City of
Madison Heights, No. 04-1046 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 7164 (6th Cir.). [2005 JB Jul]
County, correctional officers, and on-call
physician were not deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs of
detainee who died of a brain tumor. Miller v Calhoun County, No. 03-2434, 2005
U.S. App. Lexis 9716 (6th Cir.). [2005 JB Jul]
Jury was properly instructed that county could
not be held liable for alleged injuries prisoner suffered from not receiving
prescription medicine unless he could show that the county had a wide-spread
policy or custom of failing to pre-approve detainees' prescriptions for
administration before they reported for incarceration at the jail. Calhoun v.
Ramsey, No. 03-3036, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 8694 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Jul]
Prisoner did not state a claim against
superintendent of county jail for inadequate medical care when there were no
facts showing that he was in any way involved in a correctional officer's
alleged refusal to call a doctor after the prisoner complained of stomach pain,
which turned out to be a condition subsequently requiring surgery for the
removal of part of his intestines and colon. Hudson v. Clark, No. 04-CV-0010,
319 F. Supp. 2d 347 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Prison doctor's care and treatment of a prisoner
suffering from a hernia condition was not deliberately indifferent, despite the
fact that he did not follow an outside doctor's prior prescription, but instead
provided alternative pain medication. Guiddy v. Terhune, No. 02-2254, 90 Fed.
Appx. 592 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
A non-attorney administrator of the estate of a
inmate who died from cancer while incarcerated could not pursue a pro se
wrongful death and federal civil rights claim against correctional medical
personnel when his action constituted the unauthorized practice of law under
Arkansas statutes. The court noted that the administrator was not the only
beneficiary or creditor of the estate, and his pursuit of the claim therefore
constituted the practice of law in the course of representing the interest of
others. Jones v. Corr. Med. Serv., No. 04-1985, 401 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
Prisoner's claim that prison medical personnel
failed to diagnose and treat his broken leg and failed to provide him with
medication prescribed at hospital demonstrated, at most, claims for negligent
medical treatment or a disagreement with the course of treatment received, and
was inadequate to show a constitutional claim for which deliberate indifference
to a serious medical need is required. Turk v. Thomas, No. 04-20181, 121 Fed.
Appx. 24 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show deliberate indifference
by prison medical personnel to either his initial shoulder injury from slipping
and falling or his subsequent reinjury. The prisoner himself did not allege
that his exhibited symptoms were serious enough to demonstrate a need for
hospitalization, and some treatment was provided for the first injury, and the
prisoner failed to show that the doctor was aware of his re-injury or requests
to see the doctor. Barron v. Pohlman, M.D., #04-1212, 122 Fed. Appx. 416 (10th
Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Dead prisoner's estate was entitled to file a
late notice of claim of a medical malpractice claim against the county when
there was evidence from the inmate's treating physician that the cancer which
caused her death rendered her "debilitated" and unable to attend to
her needs, confining her to her bed and wheelchair. Olsen v. County of Nassau,
789 N.Y.S.2d 264 (A.D. 2nd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Federal prisoner could not pursue a civil rights
claim for inadequate medical care under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) against a private hospital or
a nurse there because the defendants were not federal entities. Claims under
Bivens require that the defendant act under color of federal authority. Holz v.
Terre Haute Regional Hospital, No. 03-4279, 123 Fed. Appx. 712 (7th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
Jewish prisoner failed to allege any specific
facts to demonstrate that the alleged denial of adequate medical care to him
for his asthma, migraine headaches and sleep apnea was based on anti-Semitic
motives. Additionally, his equal protection claim was at odds with his use of
the alleged mistreatment of other prisoners to show deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs. Federal trial court grants dismissal of all claims in
the lawsuit. Davis v. County of Nassau, No. 03-CV-4148, 355 F. Supp. 2d 668
(E.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Prison guard was not entitled to summary judgment when
he failed to deny that he knew of prisoner's medical problems but failed to
take action to obtain medical care for him. Alsina-Ortiz v. Laboy, No. 03-2611,
400 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2005). [2005 JB May]
Federal statute and regulations on privacy of
medical records -- requirements and exemptions from certain requirements for
correctional facilities. [2005 JB May]
Correctional officials acted properly in imposing
discipline on prisoner who refused to obey order to take TB test on religious
grounds. Detecting latent TB to prevent its spread was a legitimate penological
interest and the discipline imposed was reasonably related to serving that
interest. Cannon v. Mote, No. 4-04-0222, 2005 Ill. App. Lexis 212 (Ill. App.
4th Dist. 2005). [2005 JB May]
County sheriff could not be held personally liable for alleged deliberate
indifference to denial of medical care to pre-trial detainee for lithium
poisoning when there was no evidence that he was personally involved in the
denial or that he did anything in his supervisory capacity that resulted in or
caused the denial. Quint v. Cox, No. 03-3227, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1243 (D. Kan.
2004). [N/R]
Maine prisoner was not required to show
compliance with a state Health Security Act, 24 M.R.S.A. Secs. 2853, 2903,
requiring that claims of medical malpractice be submitted to a pre-litigation
medical screening panel prior to being filed with a court when he was not
asserting any state law malpractice claim, but only a federal civil rights
claim for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under
the Eighth Amendment. Faulkingham v. Penobscot County Jail, No. CIV. 04-48, 350
F. Supp. 2d 285 (D. Me. 2004). [N/R]
A prison doctor's decision to have a pre-trial
detainee taper off from the use of one prescription drug (Xanax) and start to
take another (Imipramine) instead was not deliberate indifference to the
detainee's serious medical needs. The risk of serious side effects from doing
this was "statistically slight," and the doctor was not on duty on
the night that the detainee experienced withdrawal symptoms prior to having a
seizure and falling while in the pill call line, suffering resulting head
injuries. Burdette v. Butte County, No. 03-15840, 121 Fed. Appx. 701 (9th Cir.
2005).[N/R]
Detainee adequately alleged facts from which a
reasonable jury could decide that a doctor employed by a private company
providing medical services at a county jail was deliberately indifferent to his
need for medical treatment for his allegedly severed tendons on his right hand.
Johnson v. Karnes, No. 03-4200, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 3278 (6th Cir. 2005).
[2005 JB Apr]
North Dakota prisoner did not show that he had a
serious medical need which had been deliberately ignored when physical
examinations and tests had resulted in a conclusion contrary to his
"self-diagnosis" that he was suffering from terminal cancer.
Purported "diagnosis" by another doctor who had not examined the
plaintiff prisoner, but made his conclusion based on information obtained from
the prisoner's sister, was insufficient to create a genuine issue as to the existence
of cancer. Kunze v. Diehl, No. A1-04-005, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (D.N.D. 2004).
[N/R]
Prisoner failed to show that correctional
employees were deliberately indifferent to his need for surgery for his back
condition, which he claimed should have occurred sooner than it did. The
evidence showed that medical personnel saw him frequently, and repeatedly
prescribed pain medications until the surgery was scheduled. Additionally, the
prison limited his work assignments to those complying with the physical
limitations indicated by his doctors. There was also no proof that prison
employees retaliated against him for seeking medical care, as the evidence
showed that he had indeed violated the prison disciplinary rules as he was
accused of doing. Witmer v. Powell, No. 04-7064, 114 Fed. Appx. 372 (10th Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Correctional officer who confiscated diabetic
prisoner's oral medication pills shortly after he received an insulin shot, and
who stated his belief that the prisoner did not then need them, did not act
with deliberate indifference to prisoner's serious medical needs. Booth v.
King, No. 03-CV-802, 346 F. Supp. 2d 751 (E.D. Pa. 2004). [N/R]
New Jersey correctional officials could not
implement new regulations eliminating the requirement of the presence of an
emergency cart with medical equipment and supplies at the scene of
executions--for the purpose of reviving the inmate in the event of last minute
stays--without providing an explanation of its reasoning. Defendant officials
were required to present "strong" medical evidence that the effects
of the lethal injections used were irreversible. Officials would also be
required to show how new restrictions on media access to and filming of
executions were justified by legitimate penological, safety, and security
concerns. In Re. Readoption of N.J.A.C. 10A:23, 842 A.2d 207 (N.J. Super. A.D.
2004). [N/R]
A prisoner failed to show any custom or practice
for which a private contract health care provider could be held liable under
federal civil rights law for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs. It was insufficient to merely allege various individual actions
by the provider's employees, such as failing to provide him with a back brace,
when there was no showing that any policy or custom of the provider led to
these alleged deprivations. Dashley v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., No.
2:04CV00014, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (E.D. Mo. 2004). [N/R]
U.S. soldier's claim that his Eighth Amendment
rights to adequate medical treatment were violated while he was confined at the
U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (USDB) were barred by
the doctrine stated in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), barring
claims by members of the military against the U.S. government under the Federal
Tort Claims Act "where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of
activity incident to service." Tootle v. USDB Commandant, No. 04-3018, 390
F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Pretrial detainee who claimed that delay in
transporting him to a hospital caused him to become a paraplegic failed to show
that an alleged county policy of understaffing the sheriff's office and jail
resulted in his injuries. McDowell v. Brown, No. 04-10272, 392 F.3d 1283 (11th
Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Mar]
In a lawsuit brought by a hospital against a
Wisconsin county to recover the cost of medical care provided to an indigent
inmate brought there by the sheriff, the county was not responsible for the
inmate's medical expenses after a trial court dismissed the charges against him
three days after he was admitted to the hospital. Once the charges were
dismissed, and a parole hold was canceled, he was no longer in custody for
purposes of a statute requiring the county to pay such costs for persons held
under state criminal law. Meriter Hosp. Inc. v. Dane County, No. 02-2837, 689
N.W.2d 627 (Wis. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's lawsuit that medical personnel
improperly removed his kidney and part of his bladder without a definitive
diagnosis of cancer did not adequately show deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need, but instead essentially only alleged negligence, or
medical malpractice, which is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Martino v. Miller, No.
04-CV-03138, 341 F. Supp. 2d 256 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Denial of prisoner's repeated requests for
appointed counsel in his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming he was denied
adequate medical care and housing was not an abuse of the trial court's
discretion. The trial court found that the prisoner himself appeared to have a
"good knowledge" of the applicable court rules and had shown, through
his filed motions and responses, that he had the capacity to represent himself
in the case, in which the issues were not so complex nor were the merits so
strong as to justify the appointment of a lawyer. Thornhill v. Cox, No.
03-3680, 113 Fed. Appx. 179 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner who alleged he was denied medical
treatment for two days in county jail while suffering from appendicitis
adequately asserted a claim for violation of his constitutional rights even
absent a showing that the delay resulted in a specific detriment to his
ultimate treatment. Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County, No. 03-2222, 390 F.3d 890
(6th Cir. 2004) [2005 JB Feb]
Federal appeals court reinstates lawsuit in which
prisoner claimed jail personnel were deliberately indifferent to his suffering
the effects of his withdrawal from methadone. Foelker v. Outagamie County, No.
04-1430, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 255 (7th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Feb]
Factual issue as to whether prison medical
personnel acted with deliberate indifference in delaying the dispensing of
prescribed antibiotic medication to a prisoner, thereby causing him "hours
of needless suffering" without any reason for doing so precluded summary
judgment for the defendants. A factual issue was also presented on whether a
doctor was deliberately indifferent in prescribing a medication that a
specialist had warned against on three occasions, causing severe constipation
for more than a week following the prisoner's rectal prolapse surgery. Gil v.
Reed, No. 02-1823, 381 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
A genuine issue of material fact existed as to
whether a prison doctor was deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious
medical needs in delaying a recommendation to transfer him to another prison
where he could obtain physical therapy for his arthritis. Trial court
improperly granted summary judgment to defendant doctor. Jordan v. Smith, No.
02-16152, 90 Fed. Appx. 228 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Pretrial detainee failed to show that jail
personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by
allegedly denying him prescribed medication and causing him to miss chemotherapy
appointments while he was confined. A hospital confirmed that there was no
medication prescribed for him at the time of his detention and that he was no
longer scheduled for chemotherapy treatment. Additionally, the detainee
declined to provide consent for jail personnel to enter his home to pick up any
prescribed medications allegedly located there. Scott v. Archey, No. 03-1837,
99 Fed. Appx. 62 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal prisoner's claims concerning alleged
inadequate medical care provided after he experienced a head injury following a
fall, which subsequently resulted in seizures and strokes really only amounted
to a disagreement with medical personnel as to the proper course of treatment
to be followed, and was insufficient to state a claim for violation of his
constitutional rights, which requires a showing of deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs. Smith v. Tharp, No. 03-1293, 97 Fed. Appx. 815 (10th
Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Inmate who claimed that medical personnel were deliberately
indifferent to a wrist condition he described as paralytic and his
self-diagnosis of carpel tunnel syndrome could not be awarded damages when
medical records contained no indication of any diagnosed wrist condition and a
doctor's diagnosis showed that the inmate's complaints of pain were the result
of "psychosomatic delusion." Green v. Senkowski, No. 03-0250, 100
Fed. Appx. 45 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner was entitled to discovery of personnel
files and related records of five defendant prison employees he claimed had
been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, along with other
documents concerning their training and job performance. Any intrusion into
their privacy could be addressed by an appropriate protective order by the
court. Smith v. Goord, No. Civ.A. 9:03-CV-294, 222 F.R.D. 238 (N.D.N.Y. 2004).
[N/R]
Prisoner's complaint adequately alleged deliberate
indifference to his condition of Hepatitis C in asserting that he was denied
treatment because of a possibility that he might be paroled in less than 12
months, which did not come to pass. Defendants failed to meet their burden, in
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, asserting qualified immunity,
that there was no way that the prisoner could prove his case. McKenna v.
Wright, No. 04-0492, 386 F.3d 432 (2nd Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Jan]
Claim against a private corporation for alleged
inadequate medical care resulting in female prisoner's death from acute renal
failure did not have to satisfy a "heightened pleading standard"
providing detailed facts, since corporation was the "functional
equivalent" of a municipality and could not assert a qualified immunity
defense. Swann v. Southern Health Partners, Inc., No. 03-14387, 388 F.3d 834
(11th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Jan]
Prisoner failed to show that correctional
employees were deliberately indifferent to his serious need for treatment for
his HIV/AIDS condition and Hodgkin's disease as he did not demonstrate that any
alleged lapses in his treatment resulted in any injuries. Jackson v. Fauver,
No. CIV.98-2890 WGB, 334 F. Supp. 2d 697 (D.N.J. 2004). [N/R]
Under California statutory law, both the State
and the Department of Corrections were immune from liability on a prisoner's
claims arising out of alleged medical malpractice and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Prisoner was also required, under both federal and state
law, to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing his claims in
court, and failed to do so. Wright v. State of Cal., No. C044302, 19 Cal. Rptr.
3d 92 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2004). [N/R]
A prisoner who suffered a loss of sight in one
eye knew of the delay in his medical treatment when three months intervened
between hospital visits for his eye injury after a fistfight. Accordingly, the
statute of limitations began to run after the second hospital visit. While the
prisoner sued the county sheriff within the one-year statute of limitations
period, he failed to add a doctor as a defendant until more than a year had passed,
so that his claim against the doctor and his insurer was barred. McCafferty v.
Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, No. 04-CA-205, 880 So.2d 84 (La. App. 5th
Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's past "flooding" of court
with frivolous complaints and his current "outrageous" allegations
that there was a "vast conspiracy" among defendant correctional
employees to "kill him" supported a trial court's decision not to
grant his request for injunctive relief and a finding that he did not show a
"probability of success" on the merits of his claims about alleged
inadequate medical care. Federal appeals court urges the trial court "not
to entertain any further complaints" by the prisoner which would require
allowing him to proceed as a pauper at either the trial court or appeals court
level. "The only complaint that the district court must seriously
entertain and review is one of imminent danger of serious physical
injury," the appeals court stated, citing 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(g).
Pellegrino v. Janklow, No. 03-3565, 107 Fed. Appx. 704 (8th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Estate of pretrial detainee who died after an
asthma attack stated a viable claim for deliberate indifference to the
detainee's serious medical needs, based on allegations that he had experienced
a prior asthma attack requiring medical attention and that deputies were aware
of his condition and were told that he was experiencing another attack, but
failed to take necessary action. Cooper v. Office of the Sheriff of Will
County, No. 03C5064, 333 F. Supp. 2d 728 (N.D. Ill. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that medical personnel
threatened to withhold medical treatment for his back condition if he did not
drop his prior complaint about their conduct was sufficient to state a claim
for cruel and unusual punishment regardless of whether his spinal condition
worsened as a result. The alleged conduct served no legitimate penological
purpose and resulted in pain and suffering. Wesley v. Davis, No. CV
01-4310-WJR(RCX), 333 F. Supp. 2d 888 (C.D. Cal. 2004). [N/R]
Daughter of prisoner who died in county jail,
allegedly because of the failure to provide medical care for an unspecified
illness, could pursue claim against county commission for alleged breach of its
duty to provide adequate funding for medical treatment of jail prisoners,
including funds for medicine. Shaw v. Coosa County Commission, No. 03-F-1034-N,
330 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (M.D. Ala. 2004). [N/R]
Warden was not entitled to summary judgment in
lawsuit alleging that he was deliberately indifferent to paraplegic prisoner's
medical needs and "inhumane housing conditions," or on disability
discrimination claims seeking injunctive relief. Disability discrimination
claims seeking money damages rejected. Miller v. King, No. 02-13348, 384 F.3d
1248 (11th Cir. 2004) [2004 JB Dec]
Even if prison law librarian failed to timely
complete prisoner's request for copies of certain documents, this did not show
an unconstitutional denial of his right of access to the courts, when the
documents in question would not have changed a federal magistrate's conclusion
that certain defendants in the prisoner's civil rights lawsuit should be
dismissed for lack of personal involvement in the incidents at issue, and that
the history of his treatment for respiratory problems, including a mix-up in
his prescriptions, showed nothing more than negligence at most, and was
inadequate to show a constitutional violation. Rumsey v. Michigan Department of
Corrections, No. 03-CV-72221-DT, 327 F. Supp. 2d 767 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
Surviving family of federal prisoner who died
from cancer while incarcerated did not have standing under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq., to pursue claims for emotional
distress they allegedly suffered from his death. Gonzalez-Jiminez De Ruiz v.
U.S., #03-10274, 378 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner, who received favorable rulings in his
prison grievances concerning alleged inadequate medical treatment, and
specifically, special orthopedic footwear provided to him after foot surgery,
sufficiently exhausted his available administrative remedies when the favorable
rulings allegedly failed to result in any relief. Appeals court states that a
prisoner who does not receive promised relief under such circumstances is not
required, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, to file
yet another grievance concerning that. Abney v. McGinnis, #02-0241, 380 F.3d
663 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner who complained of chest pains and was
later diagnosed as suffering from a hiatal hernia or gastroesophageal reflux
disease and high blood pressure did not show that county jail officers acted
with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by immediately
treating him with over-the-counter antacids. There was no evidence that the
prisoner suffered any lasting physical injury, and he was later given
prescription heartburn medication. Stedman v. Dunn, #03-3261, 98 Fed. Appx. 769
(10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Estate of jail prisoner who contracted bacterial
meningitis and died from it while incarcerated could pursue claim that
conditions in the facility, including overcrowding, poor ventilation, and
structural defects caused or contributed to the prisoner's death in violation
of the Eighth Amendment. There were factual issues concerning whether the
defendants failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the jail and whether jail
medical personnel were deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's resulting
medical condition. Brown v. Mitchell, No. CIV.A. 3:03CV820, 327 F. Supp. 2d 615
(E.D.Va. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show that pharmacy, in
allegedly filling his prescription with the wrong medication, was deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs or conspired to interfere with his
civil rights. The prisoner also failed to provide any evidence that the mistake
was based on a racial motivation. Davila v. Secure Pharmacy Plus, No.
3:02CV652, 329 F. Supp. 2d 311 (D. Conn. 2004). [N/R]
Doctor's failure to treat prisoner's Hepatitis C
virus with interferon was, at most, negligence, and did not constitute
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Bender v. Regier, No.
03-3529, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 20608 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Nov]
A policy of requiring incoming jail inmates to
use a delousing shampoo did not violate their right to refuse unwanted medical
treatment. Russell v. Richards, No. 03-3600, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis
19388 (7th Cir.). [2004 JB Nov]
In a lawsuit claiming that a prisoner died as a
result of prison officials' failure to diagnose and treat his medical condition
of a hernia of the small and large bowel, the prisoner's injury was not the
death but rather the worsening of his condition. Therefore, since notice of the
claim was not provided to the District of Columbia until six months and one day
after the date that his conditioned worsened, it did not comply with a statute
requiring notice within six months, so that the lawsuit was properly dismissed.
Brown v. District of Columbia, No. 02-CV-756, 853 A.2d 733 (D.C. 2004). [N/R]
Failure to provide prisoner with a seatbelt while
transporting him, while handcuffed, in bus, did not violate his constitutional
rights. Additionally, claims that he was injured through negligent or reckless
operation of the bus by the driver could not be pursued as federal civil rights
claims. Prisoner could proceed, however, on his claims that prison medical
personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs caused by
his injuries in the accident. Carrasquillo v. City of New York, 324 F. Supp. 2d
428 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Illinois statute which allowed the involuntary
administration of psychotropic medication to a pretrial detainee was not
unconstitutional, but in the case of the individual plaintiff detainee, the
trial court improperly granted the state's request to medicate him. In Re Mark
W., No. 05-02-0461, 811 N.E.2d 767 (Ill. App. 5th Dist. 2004). [2004 JB
Oct]
Medical treatment of federal prisoner for chronic
hepatitis C complied with Bureau of Prison regulations, and the prison warden
was entitled to summary judgment on prisoner's claim that he was denied proper
medical care. Kane v. Winn, 319 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D. Mass. 2004). [N/R]
The statement, in a notice of intent to file a
claim against the state for the wrongful death of an inmate, that the prisoner
died due to negligence in the medical care provided for his "condition of
congestive heart" was adequate to present a claim. Rodriguez v. State of
New York, 779 N.Y.S.2d 552 (A.D. 2d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's assertion that prison officials, in
the course of testing his blood glucose level, "jabbed" a device
"deep within the flesh" of his finger, causing "profuse
bleeding" and "serious nerve damage," subsequently failing to
provide adequate medical care for the resulting injuries was sufficient to
state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Morgan v. Duran, No.
03-17134, 102 Fed. Appx. 587 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rejects challenges to
consent decree requiring improvements to Puerto Rican prison conditions,
including claim that the court's order violated the requirements of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Court declines to order termination of consent decree
requiring privatization of inmate health care, pointing to continuing serious
problems. Feliciano v. Rullan, No. 04-1300, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 16258 (1st
Cir.). [2004 JB Sep]
Florida Department of Health illegally repealed
provisions of the state administrative code governing health and safety
conditions in state correctional facilities by failing to comply with
rule-making requirement that it identify the statute implemented by the repeal.
Court also rejects Department's argument that state statutes imposed a duty on
it to regulate conditions only in mental institutions, finding that it also has
a duty to regulate prison conditions. Osterback v. Agwunobi, No. 1D03-1589, 873
So. 2d 437 (Fla. App. 1st Dist., 2004). [N/R]
A correctional facility in Connecticut is not an
"other facility" which is subject to the requirements of a
"patient's bill of rights" under state law, C.G.S.A. Sec. 17a-540(a).
Accordingly, the rights given to patients under that statute to assist with the
planning for their discharge from a hospital for psychiatric disorders do not
apply when the patient being discharged is a convicted felon and is subject to
a further period of incarceration. The estate of an inmate who died in a
correctional facility could not, therefore, rely on alleged violations of the
patient's bill of rights in seeking damages from the facility and its employees
for failure to provide adequate and proper medical care, mediation, and
supervision of the prisoner. Wiseman v. Armstrong, No. 16988, 850 A.2d 114
(Conn. 2004). [N/R]
Prison officials were not deliberately
indifferent to insulin dependent prisoner's need for a proper diet in
prescribing a "self-monitored" diabetic diet in which the prisoner
was responsible for choosing the proper food, and he was given counseling and
education on how to do so. Additionally, substitutes for certain foods for
diabetic inmates were made available. Court also rules that the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132, and Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 794, and their prohibition on "disability discrimination" did
not give the inmate a general federal cause of action for challenging the
medical care provided for his insulin dependent diabetes. These statutes
provide a basis for challenging discriminatory treatment or denial of benefits
on the basis of a disability, and do not provide a basis for challenging the
medical treatment of underlying disabilities. Carrion v. Wilkinson, 309 F.
Supp. 2d 1007 (N.D. Ohio 2004). [N/R]
Alleged failure of city to alleviate overcrowding
in jail, resulting in unsanitary conditions, could possibly be a basis for
liability for prisoner's death from bacterial meningitis. Doctor's failure to
treat prisoner for this condition, however, did not show deliberate
indifference, when he testing the prisoner for meningitis and concluded that he
did not have that condition. Brown v. Mitchell, 308 F. Supp. 2d 682 (E.D. Va.
2004). [N/R]
Prison doctor's decision to discontinue prior
course of treatment of prisoner for gastrointestinal problems and to prescribe
allegedly "less effective" medications was insufficient to show
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Doctor's removal of prisoner
from "chronic care" list, even though it resulted in prisoner having
to make a $3 co-payment each time he requested medical care, was not a
violation of his rights when it did not result in any denial of medical care
because of the fee. White v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., No. 03-2097,
94 Fed. Appx. 262 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Failure of prison medical employees to surgically
repair prisoner's bilateral inguinal hernia was not deliberate indifference to
a serious medical condition when prison physician examined prisoner thirteen
times over an eighteen months, wrote "numerous" prescriptions, and
ordered several tests. Lawrence v. Virginia Dept. of Corrections, 308 F. Supp.
2d 709 (E.D. Va. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that doctor and physician's
assistant repeatedly refused to examine him for complaints of back pain and
injuries from fall was sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference.
Plaintiff adequately exhausted available administrative remedies despite his
failure to ask for money damages in filed grievances, when grievance procedure
did not require him to ask for any specific remedy at all. Spruill v. Gillis,
#02-2659, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 12027 (3rd Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Jul]
Evidence did not show that prison officials
acted with deliberate indifference to detainee's need for medical treatment for
his psoriasis when he was seen by prison doctors on seven separate occasions
during his five months at the facility, and seen by nurses at least fifteen
times, as well as being transported to off-site specialists, including his own
rheumatologist and dermatologist on over twenty occasions. Many of the prisoner's
specific complaints "relate to the quality of care he received rather than
to the lack of care," which did not show deliberate indifference by the
officials. Kramer v. Gwinnett County, Georgia, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (N.D. Ga.
2004). [N/R]
Prison officials' alleged refusal to treat
inmate's hepatitis B and C by medicating him with interferon did not constitute
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and was not disability
discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq. Evidence was insufficient to show that the
plaintiff's hepatitis was severe enough to require such
"extraordinary" treatment under generally accepted medical standards,
and prisoner failed to show that he was denied the requested treatment solely
because of his disability of mental illness. Davidson v. Texas Dept. of Crim.
Justice, #03-41185, 91 Fed. Appx. 963 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
U.S. government could not be held liable under
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346, 2671 et seq., for alleged
negligent care provided to a federal prisoner by a doctor who was an
independent contractor rather than an employee. Statute does not authorize
lawsuits against the government for the actions of independent contractors.
Jones v. U.S., 305 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (D. Kan. 2004). [N/R]
Prison policy of requiring inmate to get a court
order to obtain an elective abortion did not violate her constitutional rights.
Victoria W. v. Larpenter, No. 02-30598, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8602 (5th Cir.).
[2004 JB Jun]
Far from showing that court ordered privatization
of inmate medical care in Puerto Rico should be ended, correctional official's
own evidence showed that consent decree relief was still necessary to remedy
ongoing problems. Feliciano v. Serra, 300 F.Supp.2d 321 (D. Puerto Rico 2004).
[2004 JB Jun]
Prisoner's lawsuit concerning complaints about
his medical treatment, when most of the complained of treatment took place
after he filed his administrative grievance, was properly dismissed in its
entirety for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Ross v.
County of Bernalillo, No. 02-2337, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 8362 (10th Cir. 2004).
[2004 JB Jun]
Jail nurse who took incoming prisoner's medical
history was not liable for any damage allegedly resulting from 51-day delay in
eye examination and resumption of medication which worsened his glaucoma when
she had no further contact with him after intake process. Prisoner also failed
to show that sheriff had any knowledge about his condition or was personally
involved, in anyway, in the 51-day delay in scheduling his eye examination.
Richardson v. Nassau County, 277 F. Supp. 2d 106 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Hemophiliac detainee was not entitled, in his
lawsuit against county sheriff and jailer for allegedly failing to provide him
with timely medical care for a nosebleed, to an extension of time to designate
his expert witness. Trial court therefore properly excluded the testimony of
the plaintiff's expert, and granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Summey v. Barker, No. 632A02, 586 S.E.2d 247 (N.C. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim of a "great deal" of
suffering as a result of a tooth extraction which did not "go well"
was insufficient to support a lawsuit for deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Prisoner's claim,
at most, amounted to possible negligence or medical malpractice, which is
insufficient for a constitutional claim. Majors v. Ridley-Turner, 277 F. Supp.
2d 916 (N.D. Ind. 2003). [N/R]
Even if prisoner received inadequate medical care
after secretly ingesting cocaine upon his arrest, resulting in his death in
custody, county was not liable to his estate in the absence of any evidence
that an official policy of providing inadequate care was the cause of his
injuries. Graham v. County of Washtenaw, No. 02-1614, 358 F.3d 377 (6th Cir.
2004). [2004 JB May]
Federal trial court approves settlement between
the parties in class action lawsuit by diabetic inmates claiming denial of
adequate medical care. Settlement was fair in guaranteeing certain types of
treatment to prisoners and providing for the monitoring of the treatment.
Gaddis v. Campbell, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (M.D. Ala. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's assertion that prison medical staff
did not inform him of nor treat him for tuberculosis and denied him follow-up
treatment after foot surgery was sufficient to state a claim for deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Allah v. Artuz, #01-0067, 86 Fed. Appx. 455 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner suffering from diabetes did not show an
excessive risk of harm to his health from the inclusion of pork in his
prescribed diabetic diet. Doctor only included a reference to a pork-free diet
because prisoner requested it and there was no evidence that the inclusion of
pork threatened the prisoner's health or that the calories provided were
inadequate. Hall-Bey v. Cohn, #02-3731, 86 Fed. Appx. 200 (7th Cir. 2004).
[N/R]
Statements by state prison psychologist to
mentally ill prisoner who made suicidal threats that no one would care if he
died did not constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, when
psychologist also recommended that the prisoner remain under observation, and
the prisoner had access to other psychologists at the prison, as well as to a
psychiatrist to whom he had been referred. Means v. Cullen, 297 F. Supp. 1148
(W.D. Wis. 2003). [N/R]
Release of state inmate's medical records to
Attorney General after inmate asserted a medical malpractice claim against the
state for alleged administration of incorrect medication by prison staff was
not authorized under New York state law, so inmate was entitled to an award of
$500 in damages. Davidson v. State of N.Y., 771 N.Y.S.2d 197 (A.D. 3d Dist.
2004). [N/R]
Prisoner was not entitled to damages for use of
back restraints after his disciplinary conviction. He failed to show that their
use was an "atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life," and rash which he allegedly suffered from the
use of the restrains was not "serious harm" as required to support a
claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Tasby v. Cain, #03-30334,
86 Fed. Appx. 745 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Under New Jersey state law, state and county
correctional facility could be held vicariously liable for alleged medical
malpractice by private contractors that provided medical care to now deceased
inmate, since their duty to provide adequate health care to the prisoner could
not be delegated. Prisoner allegedly died because he was either denied or given
inadequate dosages of prednisone medication for "Paroxysmal Nocturnal
Hemoglobinuria with hemolytic episode" (PNH), a condition for which the
only potential cure is a bone marrow transplant. Scott-Neal v. N.J. State Dept.
of Corrections, 841 A.2d 957 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2004). [N/R]
Private psychiatric hospital and not-for-profit
company which owned it were not immune under Tennessee law for potential
liability for county jail inmate's suicide on the basis of their employee's
alleged action in telling county jail that suicide protocol precautions were
not necessary for this prisoner. Employee also qualified as a "state
employee" because of his service in screening prisoners to determine if
hospitalization was appropriate, and as a state employee, he was entitled to
statutory immunity, but this did not alter the result as to the hospital or its
owner. Shelburne v. Frontier Health, 126 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. 2003). [N/R]
Correctional officers who allegedly knew that
detainee was diabetic and who failed to provide him with food or insulin
despite his complaints could be liable for deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. Federal appeals court orders further proceedings on
medical care issue and claim that officers used excessive force in response to
prisoner's request for food or medicine. Lolli v. County of Orange, #02-56309,
351 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Apr]
Prisoner stated a claim for deliberate
indifference to his safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, by alleging
that correctional officers transporting him refused to fasten his seatbelt
while he was unable to do so because of shackles. Prisoner could pursue claims
both for injuries in subsequent vehicle accident and for alleged inadequate
medical care following accident. Brown v. Missouri Department of Corrections,
#03-2193, 353 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Apr]
Prisoner's notice of his intent to file a claim
against the state concerning injuries inflicted on him during his removal from
his cell by correctional officers was inadequate when it failed to specify the
nature of his medical negligence claim. Motion to dismiss claim upheld.
Cendales v. State, 770 N.Y.S.2d 174 (A.D. Dept. 3 2003). [N/R]
Sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity on
claims that pre-trial detainee who suffered head injuries was improperly denied
medical attention. There was no showing that sheriff inadequately supervised
his subordinates, and there was no claim that there were any prior incidents in
which jail employees failed to give needed medical care to detainees. Layman v.
Alexander, 294 F. Supp. 2d 784 (W.D.N.C. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner showed that he exhausted his available
administrative remedies on his claim that inadequate medical care was provided
for his Crohn's disease and diabetes when prison officials failed to respond to
his filed grievance during the subsequent four-year time period. Woulard v.
Food Service, 294 F. Supp. 2d 596 (D. Del. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's claims against 26 correctional
employees and officials for alleged denial of adequate medical care and
unconstitutional conditions of confinement dismissed based on his failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies. McCoy v. Goord, 255 F. Supp. 2d 233
(S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Jail guards who referred detainee to a nurse one
day after he complained about foot pain were not shown to have acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. Reynolds v. Barnes, No. 03-1108, 84
Fed. Appx. 672 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that a prison doctor prescribed
a different medication for treatment of his high blood pressure than the drug
he requested was insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs and only showed a "mere disagreement" over
the best appropriate treatment. Jenkins v. Lee, No. 03-40573, 84 Fed. Appx. 469
(5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Female prisoner's pregnancy was a serious medical
condition, and genuine issues of material fact concerning whether nurses and
guards knowingly disregarded risks to her when they failed to transport her to
a hospital and placed her in segregated confinement precluded summary judgment
in her federal civil rights lawsuit. Doe v. Gustavus, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1003
(E.D. Wis. 2003). [N/R]
Five-hour delay in transporting detainee to
hospital after he repeatedly complained of chest pain did not render jailers
liable for his death twelve hours after hospitalization, in the absence of any
evidence that the defendants actually perceived or had knowledge of a
"substantial risk" of serious harm. Joseph v. City of Detroit, 289 F.
Supp. 2d 863 (E.D. Mich. 2003). [2004 JB Mar]
Even if jail medical personnel were deliberately
indifferent to insulin-dependent diabetic's serious medical needs by giving him
only one insulin shot over a 48 hour period--when he normally received up to
four shots per day--the county sheriff's office could not be held liable in the
absence of an official policy or custom causing the deprivation. Engelleiter v.
Brevard County Sheriff's Department, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (M.D. Fla. 2003).
[2004 JB Mar]
Prisoner's claim that his constitutional rights
to adequate conditions and medical care were being violated in a private prison
in Ohio where he was incarcerated under a contract with the District of
Columbia, and that D.C. officials knew or should have known of this, but failed
to take corrective action was sufficient to state a federal civil rights claim
against the District. Warren v. District of Columbia, No. 02-7120, 353 F.3d 36
(D.C. Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Mar]
Psychiatrist was entitled to summary judgment on
prisoner's claim against him alleging unjustified forced administration of
anti-psychotic drugs and excessive doses of one such drug, causing memory loss,
headaches, twitching, and confusion. Prisoner failed to properly present expert
testimony or other medical evidence sufficient to establish a claim of
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, or that the psychiatrist
had subjective knowledge that there was an excessive risk to the prisoner's
health and that the psychiatrist then failed to act on the basis of that knowledge.
Roberson v. Goodman, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (D.N.D. 2003). [N/R]
Homosexual prisoner did not successfully show
that prison guard was deliberately indifferent to his safety in placing him
with a cellmate who subsequently raped him. The plaintiff's statement to the
guard that he was "nervous" about being placed in a cell with another
prisoner was insufficient to show that the guard in fact knew of the risk and
ignored it. Alleged three-day delay in providing medical treatment following
the rape did not show inadequate medical care, in the absence of any showing
that the delay caused any harm. Harvey v. California, No. 02-16539, 82 Fed.
Appx. 544 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner suffering from gender identity disorder
(GID) stated an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care based on
allegation that prison officials refused to provide any evaluation of and
treatment of this condition, and that state Correctional Department had a
policy prohibiting any hormone or surgical treatment for inmates suffering from
GID regardless of their medical condition. While the Eleventh Amendment barred
claims against prison officials in their official capacities, the plaintiff
prisoner stated a claim against the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department
of Corrections in his individual capacity. Barrett v. Coplan, 292 F. Supp. 2d
281 (D.N.H. 2003). [N/R]
Even if prisoner suffered a serious injury when
allegedly defective cell doors closed on him, he could not pursue a
constitutional claim for inadequate medical care against prison officials in
the absence of facts that showed that they acted with deliberate indifference
in denying him such care. Burks v. Nassau County Sheriff's Department, 288 F.
Supp. 2d 298 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that a prison official had
canceled his prescribed medical treatment with a pain reliever, muscle relaxer
and physical therapy on the ground that the prison could not afford the cost
was sufficient to assert a claim for inadequate medical care. Wilson v.
Vannatta, 291 F. Supp. 2d 811 (N.D. Ind. 2003). [N/R]
California Supreme Court rules that mentally ill
inmates, placed in mental institutions after the conclusion of their sentences,
may not be forced to take anti-psychotic drugs unless they are found to be an
immediate danger to themselves or others or incompetent to refuse treatment. In
re Qawi, No. S100099, 2004 Cal. LEXIS 1 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780, 81 P.3d 224. [2004
JB Feb]
Corrections employee and prison doctors were not
entitled to qualified immunity brought by prisoner who suffered a fractured
skull as a result of an attack by his co-defendant in a criminal trial.
Prisoner claimed that no action was taken to transfer him or separate him from
his attacker, despite knowledge of the hostility between them. Inadequate
medical care claims also asserted, based on alleged transfer to facility not
equipped to address prisoner's medical needs, and three-week delay of doctor at
new facility in examining prisoner. Scicluna v. Wells, No. 02-2117, 345 F.3d
441 (6th Cir. 2003).[2004 JB Feb]
Prisoner whose medical condition (chronic
hypertension, a serious kidney disorder, and an enlarged prostate) caused him
to urinate as often as three to four times an hour, did not state a claim for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs based on difficulties he
allegedly experienced when forbidden by regulation to go to the bathroom during
head count. Simpson v. Overton, #03-1151, 79 Fed. Appx. 117 (6th Cir. 2003).
[N/R]
Correctional officers and prison nurses did not
act with deliberate indifference to prisoner's serious medical needs by
refusing for two days to provide him with prescribed pain pills because he was
not wearing pants at the time that the medication was distributed. Court finds
that the alleged "no pants, no service" policy did not demonstrate a
disregard for the prisoner's health, and the defendants stated that they
regarded the plaintiff's action of not wearing his pants as constituting a
refusal of the medication. West v. Millen, #02-4055, 79 Fed. Appx. 190 (7th
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Correctional policy allegedly denying a prisoner
medical treatment for Hepatitis C because he would not participate in a prison
substance abuse program was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Court finds that Hepatitis C is a serious medical condition,
that physicians had prescribed treatment, and that the plaintiff prisoner had
been free of drug or alcohol use for over two years. Domenech v. Goord, 766
N.Y.S.2d 287 (Sup. 2003). [N/R]
A genuine factual issue as to whether a prisoner
exhausted his administrative remedies concerning his grievance over missing a
night-time dosage of prescribed pain medication precluded summary judgment for
state Department of Corrections Commissioner in prisoner's federal civil rights
lawsuit. Richardson v. Goord, #02-289, 347 F.3d 431 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Estate of woman who allegedly suffered a heart attack
and died after being denied her daily dose of methadone for four days after she
was jailed for driving without a valid license reaches $2.5 million settlement
of federal civil rights lawsuit against Florida county. The defendant county
had argued that the death arose from reasons unrelated to withdrawal from
methadone. Estate of Johnson v. Orange County, No. 6:03-CV-655-ORL-18-KRS (M.D.
Fla. Nov. 10 2003), reported in The National Law Journal, p. 26 (December 1,
2003). [N/R]
A mere difference of opinion as to what the
appropriate treatment was for the plaintiff prisoner's back condition was
insufficient to establish a claim for violation of his constitutional rights
through deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Gray v.
McCaughtry, No. 02-2436, 72 Fed. Appx. 434 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Trial court's denial of state officials' motion
seeking to exclude female inmates from the class in a class action lawsuit
brought by male state inmates alleging inadequate medical care in violation of
disability discrimination statutes was not a grant of injunctive relief, and therefore
was not subject to immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1). Plata v.
Davis, #02-16161, 329 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Award of $108,000 for deliberate indifference to
prisoner's serious hand injury overturned by appeals court. Many factors,
including prisoner's own failure to seek treatment when he was not
incarcerated, contributed to severity of condition, and some facts which caused
a delay in surgery or the allegedly inadequacy of post-surgical care were
beyond the defendants' control. Hernandez v. Keane, #00-347, 341 F.3d 137 (2nd
Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Dec]
Prisoner's claim that he did not receive the
specific medication he wanted to relieve rashes and itching from his allergies
did not establish deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs when he
received "extensive" medical attention for his problems. Kretchnar v.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 130 M.D. 2003, 831 A.2d 793 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2003). [N/R]
Prisoner who suffered a wrist injury during a
prisoner assault failed to establish that warden acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs, based on the fact that surgery only
took place nine days after the injury. The prisoner was seen by a number of
doctors and there was no evidence that the warden ever intentionally withheld
medical care, ignored the prisoner's complaints, or knew that the prisoner was
in need of immediate surgery or that a delay was likely to lead to serious
medical consequences. Shafer v. Carmona, #02-41175, 71 Fed. Appx. 350 (5th Cir.
2003). [N/R]
Prisoners asserting claims against county and
sheriff for alleged systemic violations of their rights as persons with
"serious mental health needs" were not required to exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing suit when there was "no available
administrative remedies" that the plaintiffs could have used for relief.
Shook v. Bd. of County Commissioners of the County of El Paso, 216 F.R.D. 644
(D. Colo. 2003). [N/R]
Mother of prisoner suffering from hepatitis
C and AIDS who died within a day of being transferred from jail medical
facility to hospital failed to show that doctors at hospital acted with
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Default judgments entered
against two correctional employees based on claim that prisoner received no
follow-up or special treatment for months after being diagnosed with hepatitis
C and as being HIV positive. Rivera v. Alvarado, 240 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D. Puerto
Rico, 2003). [2003 JB Nov]
U.S. government's alleged negligent failure to
supervise experiments in which prisoner's testicles were exposed to high levels
of radiation could not be the basis of liability under the Federal Tort Claims
Act, since such failure fell within a "discretionary function" exception
to the Act. Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation, Inc., No.
01-36147, 339 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Nov]
Inmate's placement on a diet of
"nutri-loaf" as a punishment was not cruel and unusual, despite his
repeated regurgitation of the food, and his ultimate vomiting of blood. Prison
nurse only knew of two instances in four days in which inmate vomited and
provided proper medical advice. No hearing was required prior to imposition of
a temporary "nutri-loaf" diet, since it was not an "atypical and
significant hardship" in relation to the "ordinary incidents of
prison life." Gates v. Huibregtse, No. 02-2887, 69 Fed. Appx. 326 (7th
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Inmate's assertion that doctor was aware of his
back and throat pain caused by acid reflux but failed to adequately treat it
was sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. Bond v. Aguinaldo, 265 F. Supp. 2d 926 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [N/R]
Prison doctor did not act with deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs of a prisoner suffering from tuberculosis
and anxiety symptoms. Doctor examined the prisoner four times in a two-month
period, required laboratory tests to be performed, and prescribed medication,
and determined that he did not observe symptoms serious enough to require
transferring the prisoner to a medical facility. Butler v. Madison County Jail,
109 S.W.3d 360 (Tenn. App. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's allegations that his leg infection and
urinary tract infection worsened and became more serious as a result of
inadequate medical treatment was sufficient to support a claim against prison
officials for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, but trial court acted
erroneously by declining to rule on the merits of prison officials' motion for
summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, particularly when
plaintiff did not file an affidavit in opposition or show why he needed further
discovery to respond. Wallin v. Norman, #02-1634, 317 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2003).
[2003 JB Oct]
Prisoner could pursue claims against some nurses
for alleged inadequate medical care and retaliation against him for filing of
an earlier lawsuit, but not against one nurse against whom he had failed to
exhaust available administrative remedies concerning retaliation claim. The
prisoner's grievance only had to allege misconduct by the nurses and did not
need to plead all the elements of a particular legal theory. Burton v. Jones,
No. 01-1078, 321 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
Manufacturer of paper gown allegedly marketed for
use with suicidal prisoners could be held liable when it failed to tear away
when detainee hanged himself with it. Claims for products liability,
negligence, and breach of warranty could proceed, along with due process claims
against city for alleged reckless failure to provide proper medical care for
suicidal prisoner. Court dismisses Eighth Amendment claim as inapplicable for
the death of a pretrial detainee, as opposed to a convicted prisoner. Reed v.
City of Chicago, No. 01C7865, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
[2003 JB Oct]
State prison may not deny treatment of prisoner's
alleged gender identity disorder solely on the basis that he only initially
sought such treatment after his incarceration. Brooks v. Berg, No. 00-CV-1433,
2003 U.S. Dist Lexis 11911 (N.D.N.Y.). [2003 JB Oct]
Prisoner failed to show that prison officials
violated his Eighth Amendment rights by allegedly forcing him to do work which
caused pain or aggravated a prior medical condition when there were no medical
restrictions on the prisoner in effect when he transferred to the facility, and
medical restrictions placed on the prisoner at his prior institution had
expired and were two to four years old. Hogan v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections,
No. 02-7091, 65 Fed. Appx. 662 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show that correctional
officials were deliberately indifferent to medical needs including
hypoglycemia, hypertension, dental complaints, and problems with his feet, back,
legs, fingers, and wrists. The record contained "abundant evidence"
that he received treatment for these medical needs since 1992, and, at most,
that he disagreed with his health care providers and correctional officials as
to the recommended treatment programs for these problems, which was
insufficient to state a constitutional claim. Baker v. Simmons, #02-3260, 65
Fed. Appx. 231 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Medical staff at county detention facility did
not show deliberate indifference to prisoner's serious medical needs by denying
him access to post-cancer reconstructive surgery at Veterans Administration
(VA) hospital. While the prisoner did inform them that he had surgery scheduled
there, he did not sign the necessary release form to obtain his VA medical
records to determine the need for the surgery and the nature of the problem,
nor did he show that any substantial harm resulted from the delay in the
surgery. Shepard v. Sullivan, No. 02-1198, 65 Fed. Appx. 677 (10th Cir. 2003).
[N/R]
Louisiana appeals court upholds award of $85,000
to daughter of prisoner who died after being transported to the hospital.
Sheriff's employee, during transport of prisoner, allegedly failed to follow
doctor's instruction to give inmate oxygen, and did not attempt to clear his
airway after the prisoner vomited during CPR. Johnson v. Foti, No.
2002-CA-1995, 844 So. 2d 1050 (La. App. 2003). [2003 JB Sep]
Prisoner injured from a slip and fall on a wet
floor in county jail failed to show that correctional officers actually knew
that there was water on the floor, or that the water had remained there for any
substantial period of time, as required for him to recover damages for his
resulting injuries. Heliodore v. State of New York, 759 N.Y.S.2d 554 (A.D. 3d
Dept. 2003). [N/R]
Deputy's statement to prisoner, in front of other
inmates, revealing his HIV status did not violate his constitutional rights.
Federal trial court holds that there is no general fundamental constitutional
right to privacy for personal medical information and that any judgment about
whether such information should be protected must be left to legislative
action. Sherman v. Jones, 258 Fed. Supp. 2d 440 (E.D. Va. 2003). [2003
JB Sep]
Prisoner suffering from gender identity disorder
stated a claim for inadequate medical treatment based on alleged indifference
to their need for protection against self-mutilation following the withdrawal
of hormone therapy. De'Lonta v. Angelone, #01-8020, 330 F.3d 630 (4th Cir.
2003). [2003 JB Sep]
Dispute over whether county violated the terms of
a collective bargaining agreement by requiring correctional officers to
dispense medication to prisoners was subject to arbitration under Illinois
state law regardless of whether or not the disputed job assignments were legal
under a state controlled substances law. Any exclusion from arbitration has to
be expressly stated in a public employees' collective bargaining agreement
under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, 5 ILCS 315/8. Rock Island County
Sheriff Grchan v. AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 2025, #3-03-0052, 791 N.E.2d 57 (Ill.
App. 3d Dist. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's liver problems and alleged
"bashful bladder syndrome" were not sufficiently serious to show that
nurse was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by approving
him for assignment to an "arduous" field work job. Pate v. Peel, 256
F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Fla. 2003). [N/R]
Federal court finds that New York prisoner was
entitled to preliminary injunction against Department of Corrections policy of
putting inmates who refused an annual mandatory tuberculosis test on religious
grounds into tuberculin hold for one year. Selah v. Goord, 255 F. Supp. 2d 42
(N.D.N.Y. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
Prisoner who filed state law medical malpractice
claim against prison doctor who allegedly ordered him to return to heavy work
despite a back injury was not entitled to appointed lawyer. If inmate's case
had merit, court reasons, he should be able to find a lawyer to take it on a
contingency fee agreement, despite his indigency. The mere fact that the claim
was against an employee of a prison in which he was incarcerated was not an
"exceptional circumstance" requiring the appointment of counsel.
Gibson v. Tolbert, #02-0190, 102 S.W.2d 710 (Tex. 2003).[N/R]
Even if it were assumed that oral surgeon acted
negligently in removing a piece of tissue from the plaintiff inmate's mouth
while failing to extract his impacted wisdom teeth, it would merely be medical
malpractice, which is not sufficient to state a federal civil rights claim for
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Rivera v. Goord, 253 F. Supp.
22d 735 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
While requiring a convicted youth offender to perform
military-style exercises at a one-day "boot camp" was not cruel and
unusual punishment, the claim that camp officials waited almost two hours
before summoning an ambulance for the minor, who was unconscious and vomiting
while suffering heat stroke, if true, was sufficient to constitute deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. Austin v. Johnson, #02-41137, 328 F.3d
204 (5th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
Prisoner failed to show that prison officials
acted with deliberate indifference to his injured knee by failing to treat it
for twenty months. Prison medical personnel examined knee and approved surgery,
but the surgery was delayed by the timing of the prisoner's transfers and by
scheduling problems with outside doctors. Forstner v. Daley, #02-1954, 62 Fed.
Appx. 704 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Alleged action of prison nurse of applying the
wrong eye drops to the inmate's eyes was not "deliberate
indifference" to prisoner's serious medical needs, but at most, merely
negligent or unprofessional conduct in failing to check the medication before
administering it. Long v. Lafko, 254 F. Supp. 2d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that prisoner could
pursue his claim against the District of Columbia asserting that it had a
policy or custom that caused him to suffer inadequate medical treatment once he
was transferred to a Virginia state prison while serving a D.C. sentence.
Prisoner should not, appeals court holds, be required to show that D.C.
officials acted with subjective deliberate indifference in order to pursue his
claim. Baker v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 01-5205, 326 F.3d 1302 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
[2003 JB Jul]
No liability for federal prison officials for
death of prisoner stabbed by another inmate following a fight over a chess
game. Having one officer supervising 219 inmates with violent propensities
during a facility-wide move did not, by itself, establish either a violation of
civil rights or negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act, in the absence of
any expert testimony or other evidence that this caused the assault. Officer
did not act with deliberate indifference to assaulted prisoner's serious
medical needs when he summoned help as soon as he learned of the stabbing.
Robinson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 244 F. Supp. 2d 57 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). [2003
JB Jul]
Because the plaintiff was a prisoner when he
brought his lawsuit concerning an alleged assault by prison personnel and
forced medication, his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies
required dismissal of his lawsuit, despite the fact that he had subsequently
been released from custody while his lawsuit was pending, federal appeals court
rules. Cox v. Mayer, No. 02-5102, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 11554 (6th Cir.). [2003
JB Jul]
Trial court properly denied an injunction to a
prisoner who claimed that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his
need for treatment for hepatitis C by withholding the preferred
"Rebetron" drug therapy. There was evidence that treating the
prisoner with this medication would be "counter-productive" and even
dangerous based on his history of substance abuse and failure to enroll in a
substance abuse treatment program. Before the appeals court, the prisoner
produced documents showing the earlier completion of such a program and
evidence that other similar prisoners were given the requested treatment
without being required to participate in substance abuse treatment, raising the
possibility that he will, on remand, be able to establish deliberate
indifference or improper selective enforcement of the treatment policy. Conti v.
Goord, No. 02-0084, 59 Fed. Appx. 434 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Federal civil rights claim over medical care
could not be based on mere disagreement over the proper course of medical
treatment, but prisoner could pursue his claim as to whether the "repeated,
foreseeable, and lengthy delays he experienced in getting his substitute
blankets upon transfer to higher-security units of the prison rises to the
level of deliberate indifference." Linderman v. Vail, No. 01-35684, 59
Fed. Appx. 180 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Estate of prisoner who died from a prescription
drug overdose state a possible claim for negligence by alleging that prison
personnel violated policies requiring controlled substance medication to be
administered by licensed personnel, and by failing to complete a timely
"unusual incident report" (UIR) concerning the prisoner's suicide
attempt. Arias v. State of New York, Claim No. 97942, 755 N.Y.S.2d 223 (Ct. Cl.
2003). [N/R]
Trial court improperly granted summary judgment
on prisoner's claim for "deliberate indifference" to his serious
medical needs to a dentist who only provided him with dentures fifteen months
after first prescribing them as medically necessary, and one month after
prisoner filed suit. Farrow v. West, #01-13846, 320 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2003).
[2003 JB Jun]
Estate of detainee who died after he was removed
from hospital following his arrest against medical advice stated a claim
against county under Alabama law for allegedly failing to fund adequate medical
care for prisoners in county jail and for deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs in violation of civil rights. Pre-trial detainee was being
treated for renal failure and pneumonia in hospital, and his condition worsened
after his removal, leading to treating physician's recommendation that he be
re-hospitalized, a request which the sheriff allegedly refused. Gaines v.
Choctaw County Commission, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (S.D. Ala. 2003). [N/R]
Inmate alleged sufficient facts to state a claim
against prison superintendent and health services manager for acting with
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs arising from spastic
partial paralysis causing his foot to flex and his toes to curl into a claw and
related chronic pain management issues. Defendants allegedly knew of inadequate
care but did not take action to prevent further violations of prisoner's
rights. Lavender v. Lampert, 242 F. Supp. 2d 821 (D. Ore. 2002). [N/R]
Diabetic prisoner did not have to present expert
affidavit to pursue a New Jersey state law medical malpractice claim based on a
stroke he suffered after prison medical authorities failed to provide him with
insulin within twenty-one hours of his incarceration. No specialized knowledge
was required for a jury to determine whether medical personnel acted
negligently. Trial court also improperly granted summary judgment on prisoner's
federal civil rights claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. Natale v. Camden County Correctional Facility, No. 01-3449, 318 F.3d 575
(3rd Cir. 2003). [2003 JB May]
Forcible administration of anti-psychotic
medication on twenty-two occasions did not violate the rights of paranoid
schizophrenic prisoner when it was only done in emergency situations when he
exhibited behavior that was dangerous to himself or others. Dancy v. Gee, No.
00-7482, 51 Fed. Appx. 906 (4th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB May]
California prisoner could pursue claims for
intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence against state and
state employees for diagnosing him as having tuberculosis when he was actually
suffering from lung cancer. State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde), 130
Cal. Rptr. 2d 94 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2003). [N/R]
Informal complaints that a prisoner made to the city's
inspector general, such as leaving telephone messages concerning his alleged
inadequate medical treatment, inadequate heat in the city correctional
facility, etc., did not satisfy the legal requirement that he exhaust available
administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit. To
allow him to bypass formal administrative procedures "would obviate the
purpose for which the procedures were enacted." Berry v. Kerik, 237 F.
Supp. 2d 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
Prison officials did not violate prisoner's
constitutional rights by requiring that he submit to a psychological evaluation
before receiving medical treatment for hepatitis C, since there was evidence
that the treatment could result in "severe psychological side effects"
which might place prison staff members, other prisoners, and the inmate himself
in danger. Accordingly, there was a legitimate penological interest in
compelling the submission to evaluation which overrode the prisoner's right to
privacy in his medical information. Iseley v. Dragovich, 236 F. Supp. 2d 472
(E.D. Pa. 2002). [N/R]
Jailer and sheriff were not negligent in
addressing the needs of a hemophiliac detainee who experienced nose bleeds,
since he was immediately taken to a hospital when his nose began to bleed
rapidly. Prisoner's evidence also did not show negligence by medical providers.
Summey v. Barker, No. COA02-13, 573 S.E.2d 534 (N.C. App. 2002). [N/R]
Providing inmate who tested positive for
tuberculosis only a six months regimen of a preventative drug, rather than the
allegedly preferred nine months, did not constitute deliberate indifference to
a serious medical need, but only showed a difference of opinion as to the
proper treatment. Prisoner also failed to show that prison overcrowding caused
him to contract the disease. Prison medical personnel did not show deliberate
indifference by failing to respond to "rumors" of tuberculosis cases
contained in prisoner grievances, in the absence of actual evidence of
infection. Stewart v. Taft, 235 F. Supp. 2d 763 (N.D. Ohio 2002). [N/R]
Federal appeals court upholds verdict for prison
officials in lawsuit by HIV-positive prisoner who missed his medication for two
periods of time. For Eighth Amendment purposes, the jury was free to consider
the absence of concrete serious injuries resulting from the lack of medication
as a relevant factor in whether a constitutional violation occurred. Smith v.
Carpenter, #01-0294, 316 F.3d 178 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Apr]
Federal appeals court rules that prisoner
pursuing claims against Louisiana correctional officials and employees for
inadequacies in his medical treatment had to exhaust available administrative
remedies, despite recent decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court finding the
state's prison grievance system unconstitutional in part, since that system
nevertheless remained in place. Ferrington v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections,
#02-30256, 315 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Apr]
Delaware state prison officials were not entitled
to qualified immunity from claims that inmate's Eighth Amendment rights were
violated by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke that created current
serious medical needs as well as posing an unreasonable risk of future harm.
The right not to be exposed to such risks was "clearly established."
Atkinson v. Taylor, #01-3565, 316 F.3d 2257 (3rd Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Apr]
County prison officials whose lawyer did not file
a response to inmate's claims concerning alleged deprivation of his medication
were entitled to set aside the default against them when the prisoner did not
show that doing so would result in any prejudice, or that the lawyer's failure
was willful or in bad faith. The lawyer did act to set aside the default within
seven days and the defendant officials appeared to have asserted meritorious
affirmative defenses. Jackson v. Delaware County, 211 F.R.D. 282 (E.D. Pa.
2002). [N/R]
Federal prisoner's civil rights claims concerning
alleged confiscation of his wheelchair and destruction of his leg braces, along
with discontinuation of his physical therapy following transfer to a new
facility, were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies. Prisoner submitted requests for administrative
remedies to warden and then sent new requests to Regional Director instead of
submitting appeals to the Regional Director, and no appeals were ever made to
the Director of National Inmate Appeals. Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28
U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b) claims not filed within 6 months of receiving notice of
administrative agency denial were time barred. Smith v. U.S., #02-1172, 53 Fed.
Appx. 514 (10th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Inmate who contracted hepatitis C in prison's
segregation unit did not show that state prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs. Their directive on addressing hepatitis C did
not suggest denying treatment, and the plaintiff was, in fact, treated for the
disease. Additionally, there was no evidence that those who wrote the directive
were aware of the presence of the human waste in the unit from which the
plaintiff claimed he had contracted the illness. Outlaw v. Ridley-Turner,
#02-2545, 54 Fed. Appx. 229 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that he is currently being
denied medical care for acid reflux and painful cysts on his vocal cords could
pursue his lawsuit without prepaying a filing fee, despite having three
previous lawsuits which were dismissed for failure to state a claim, under an
"imminent danger" exception. State prison non-medical personnel,
however, were not subject to liability for deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs when they relied on the medical judgment of prison
medical personnel in denying the prisoner's medical grievances. Bond v.
Aguinaldo, 228 F. Supp. 2d 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002). [2003 JB Mar.]
Former director of Michigan Department of
Corrections was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for death of
diabetic prisoner allegedly resulting from policy mandating only "minimal
standards" of health care for prisoners with chronic illnesses and/or
requiring prisoner to purchase his own insulin. Young Ex Rel. Estate of Young
v. Martin, #02-1036, 51 Fed. Appx. 509 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Mar.]
Oklahoma jail reaches $385,000 settlement with prisoner
who gave birth, in custody, to a premature child who died within hours. Lawsuit
claimed that prisoner made repeated requests for medical attention which were
ignored by the defendants A federal jury's verdict in favor of the defendants
was overturned by the trial judge prior to the settlement. Smith v. Oklahoma
County, No. 00-CV-512 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 11, 2002), reported in The National Law
Journal, p. B2 (Jan. 27,2003). [N/R]
Prison doctor who allegedly told prisoner that
nothing was wrong with his wrist was not liable for deliberate indifference to
serious medical need for treatment for fracture when the inmate did receive
"prompt and substantial" care in the two months following the
accident in which the injury occurred, including two wrist splints, x-rays, a
bandage to wrap his wrist, and a wrist brace, as well as nonprescription pain
medication. Additionally, prisoner was eventually taken to an orthopedic
specialist for further care. Prisoner did, however, assert a possible federal
civil rights claim against prison nurse who, allegedly against doctor's orders,
confiscated his wrist brace and did not replace or repair it. Andrews v. Hanks,
#01-1454, 50 Fed. Appx. 766 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Director of prison's medical services who acted in an
administrative role and was not directly responsible for examining or treating
the inmate was entitled to qualified immunity for upholding prison doctor's
determination that facility did not need to provide prisoner with a continuous
positive air pressure machine (CPAP) to treat obstructive sleep apnea. Meloy v.
Bachmeier, No. 01-3415, 302 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Feb.]
A doctor's denial of a prisoner's request for
orthopedic sneakers did not constitute a deprivation that was a condition of
urgency that could produce degeneration or extreme pain, as required to support
an Eighth Amendment claim, despite inmate's claim that state-issued sneakers
caused him "unnecessary discomfort." The record showed that the
prisoner had been issued a pair of orthopedic boots because of the synovial
cysts he had on his feet. Rodriguez v. Ames, 324 F. Supp. 2d 555 (W.D.N.Y.
2002). [2003 JB Feb.]
Prisoner did not show that his medical care was
inadequate when he received thirteen medical examinations in a one year period,
an evaluation to determine whether he needed to be reclassified, and
recommendations to treat his muscular back pain with non-prescription
medication. A federal civil rights claim over medical care cannot be based
simply on a difference of opinion about the treatment offered or even on
conduct that might be negligent medical malpractice under state law. Jones v.
Norris, #02-2470, 310 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue federal civil rights
claim against optometrist for failing to immediately treat a retinal tear
following an injury to his eye when he could not show that the doctor was
subjectively aware of his serious medical needs. Despite the seriousness of the
subsequent permanently blurred vision and light sensitivity that the prisoner
experienced, the doctor did not act with deliberate indifference since he saw
no sign of retinal damage during his examination. Jones v. Van Fleit, #01-4303,
49 Fed. Appx. 626 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Pretrial detainee's heroin withdrawal represented
a "serious medical need" for purposes of an Eighth Amendment claim
and lawsuit by detainee's widow against county presented a genuine issue as to
whether the county had a policy of refusing to provide appropriate medications
to prisoners undergoing narcotics withdrawal. Gonzalez v. Cecil County,
Maryland, 221 F. Supp. 2d 611 (D. Md. 2002).[N/R]
County sheriff and jailer were entitled to
qualified immunity in civil rights lawsuit brought by inmate who claimed that
his serious medical needs were ignored after he suffered a stroke while
incarcerated. The plaintiff failed to show that the defendant officials knew
about the prisoner's stroke symptoms or his alleged repeated requests for
medical help, or that they had any subjective knowledge that the jail policy
for responding to medical requests was inadequate in any way. Prison nurse,
however, was not entitled to qualified immunity, as a reasonable nurse would
have known that a failure to examine an inmate complaining of stroke symptoms
was in violation of his constitutional rights. Tate v. Coffee County,
Tennessee, No. 01-6304, 48 Fed. Appx. 176 (6th Cir. 2002).[N/R]
Diabetic prisoner could pursue his claim that
failure to eat meals after administration of insulin injections could cause
pain and stress to his body and brain to the point of unconsciousness and coma,
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Federal appeals court also rules that
prisoner's alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies is an
"affirmative defense" which may be waived or forfeited by a
defendant. McCargo v. Guelich, #99-3017, 47 Fed. Appx. 96 (3rd Cir. 2002).
[2003 JB Jan]
Prisoner did not claim that the alleged ignoring
of his requests for medical attention at county jail was caused by a county
policy or custom, therefore he could not pursue a federal civil rights claim
against the county. Watson v. Gill, No. 01-6249, 40 Fed. Appx. 88 (6th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
Doctor who made a correct diagnosis of prisoner's
hand injury and doctor who prescribed oral antibiotics by telephone were not
deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's medical needs but there were genuine
material facts as to whether other medical personnel were deliberately
indifferent to and left untreated prisoner's subsequent pain. Walker v.
Benjamin, #00-2769, 293 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that county jailers and county
medical personnel provided him with inadequate medical treatment for his
hepatitis C was not rendered frivolous simply because of his inability to
identify the defendants by name, but his complaint was still subject to
dismissal without prejudice because of his failure to demonstrate that he had
exhausted all available administrative remedies before filing suit. McCallum v.
Gilless, #01-5897, 38 Fed. Appx. 213 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Doctor's detailed affidavit concerning the
heat-related symptoms that a correctional officer who was supervising a hoe
squad "should have" recognized in a prisoner who subsequently
collapsed and died was not sufficient to establish that the officer was
deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's medical needs. Twenty minute delay
in getting inmate to the infirmary after his collapse at work was not
unreasonable. Bridges v. Rhodes, #02-1629, 41 Fed. Appx. 902 (8th Cir. 2002).
[2002 JB Dec]
Doctor was not entitled to qualified immunity on
prisoner's claim that he acted with deliberate indifference in recommending
that prisoner purchase over-the-counter medications when he was aware that the
prisoner lacked funds to do so. Keller v. Faecher, #01-57179, 44 Fed. Appx. 828
(9th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Dec]
Correctional facility's policy requiring pregnant
prisoner to obtain a court order for and pay all costs of a non-therapeutic
abortion, which allegedly prevented a prisoner from obtaining a timely abortion
while incarcerated did not violate her Fourteenth Amendment rights. Federal
court rules that the prisoner's demand for a non-therapeutic abortion for
financial and emotional reasons was not a "serious medical need" for
purposes of an Eighth Amendment claim. Victoria v. Larpenter, 205 F. Supp. 2d
580 (E.D. La. 2002). [2002 JB Nov]
North Dakota inmate's claim that he was denied
treatment altogether for his hepatitis C, and that the correctional facility's
medical director prevented him from seeing doctors because of his prior
lawsuits against her adequately alleged a violation of his Eighth Amendment
rights. Burke v. North Dakota Corrections and Rehabilit., No. 02-1922, 294 F.3d
1043 (8th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Nov]
Prisoner's kidney stones and stress disorder
constituted serious medical needs, but prison doctors were not deliberately
indifferent to those needs, since they treated the kidney stone condition with
pain relievers and a medication to reduce calcium levels, as well as
catheterization and diet management, and a psychiatrist encouraged the prisoner
to get counseling for his stress. Thomas v. Webb, #01-6257, 39 Fed. Appx. 255
(6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner's alleged "flat feet" (or
"fallen arches") did not constitute a serious medical condition
sufficient to support a claim for deliberate indifference in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Johnson v. Medford, 208 F. Supp. 2d 590 (W.D.N.C. 2002).
[N/R]
County doctor's affidavit stating that all
medical care provided to a prisoner who suffered a brain injury after an
assault by another inmate was adequate was insufficient to support summary
judgment for the county when the plaintiff 's claim involved the issue of
whether county employees interfered with or delayed timely access of the
prisoner to medical care. Rush v. Wilder, #S-00-929, 644 N.W.2d 151 (Neb.
2002). [2002 JB Oct]
Correctional officers' failure to dispense
medication in response to prisoner's complaints about pain was not deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs as officers were simply not permitted to
dispense medication, and officers did alert medical staff. Turner v. Kight, 192
F. Supp. 2d 391 (D. Md. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner's allegation that he was misdiagnosed
with tuberculosis and then forced to take a medication for its treatment which
made him sick was insufficient to state a constitutional Eighth Amendment claim
for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, since this, at most,
indicated a possible claim for negligence or medical malpractice. Parks v.
McCoy, #01-3630, 35 Fed. Appx. 239 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show that prison officials
were deliberately indifferent to his need for timely and adequate medical care
for his knee either prior to surgery or during post-operative care, in the
absence of showing that any alleged delay caused any further harm. Lindsay v.
Terhune, #01-16813, 35 Fed. Appx. 677 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Physician and nurses at county detention facility
were not liable for detainee's death, allegedly from alcohol withdrawal.
Physician, far from exhibiting deliberate indifference, had trained the nurses
concerning how to treat alcohol withdrawal, and nurse did not believe that
detainee was suffering from such withdrawal, since he exhibited no signs of it
other than shaking. Smith v. Lejeune, 203 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (D. Wyo. 2002).
[2002 JB Sep]
Prisoner who suffered a stroke after allegedly
being deprived of his hypertension medication for a month could not recover for
alleged violation of his Eighth Amendment rights in the absence of any expert
medical testimony showing that the deprivation of the medication had anything
to do with causing his stroke. Robinson v. Hager, #s. 01-2388, 01-3388, 292
F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner could not recover damages for sheriff's
alleged denial of medical care for a spider bite or sheriff's alleged
negligence in failing to adequately fumigate the facility. The record showed
that the prisoner filed numerous grievances during the period in question,
including one filed two days after the alleged spider bite, but never mentioned
the bite or the need for medical treatment for it. Hardy v. Foti, No.
2001-CA-1257, 812 So. 2d 792 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner was properly awarded $174,178 in damages
for asserted delays in his treatment for glaucoma and skin cancer. Evidence
showed that, despite his repeated grievances, treatment was delayed and
required surgical removal of a lesion rather than cryosurgery and increased the
future risk of skin cancer. Delay in treating glaucoma resulted in corneal
swelling and might result in the loss of his eye. Caldwell v. District of
Columbia, 201 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner adequately exhausted his available
administrative remedies on his claim of deliberate indifference to his medical
needs before filing his federal civil rights lawsuit when he received a
favorable result on his grievance, even though he did not take his claim to the
highest level possible. Prisoner was not required to appeal a favorable
grievance decision, and a further appeal would not have given him any
additional relief. Brady v. Attygala, 196 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
[2002 JB Aug]
Prisoner was required to pursue a grievance with
the prison's chief medical officer before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit
over the alleged denial of necessary medical treatment even if, as he claimed,
it would have been futile to do so. The requirement of exhaustion of available
administrative remedies in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) does not contain a futility
exception. Farrell v. Addison, #01-7094, 01-7127, 34 Fed. Appx. 650 (10th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
Arkansas prisoner with asthma and "painful
knot" in his side adequately stated claims for deliberate indifference to
his medical problems by prison farm doctor and nurse, based on alleged denials
of treatment, and stated claim against warden and state corrections director
for "abdication of policy-making and oversight" responsibilities.
Appeals court also finds prisoner adequately exhausted his available
administrative remedies. Leach v. Norris, #01-3315, 34 Fed. Appx. 510 (8th Cir.
2002). [2002 JB Aug]
Alleged failure of county correctional center
nurse to dispense prisoner's medication for his HIV condition in a timely
manner was not sufficiently serious to constitute deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment even if it did cause
aches, pains and joint problems. Resulting symptoms were not a condition of
"urgency" or one which might produce "death, degeneration or
extreme pain." Evans v. Bonner, 196 F. Supp. 2d 252 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002
JB Aug]
Inmate's complaint about the denial of a chair
for his cell in order to alleviate his back pain was insufficient to state a
claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and merely
pointed to a disagreement he had with medical personnel over the adequacy of
his treatment. Hutton v. Wilkinson, #01-3667, 34 Fed. Appx. 463 (6th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
Paraplegic inmate was properly awarded $250,000
for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs which resulted in him
developing severe ulcers on his lower back and buttocks from failure to follow
medical orders concerning his care. County policies prevented jail medical
personnel from providing adequate care. Lawson v. Dallas County, #00-11078, 286
F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
Physicians and nurses
involved in prisoner's care prior to his death from severe dehydration were not
entitled to qualified immunity from liability when there were numerous disputed
factual issues about what happened. Mabrey v. Farthing, 280 F.3d 400 (4th Cir.
2002). [2002 JB Jun]
Prisoner did not adequately present a case that
prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his lumbar spine
arthritis. A mere showing that the prisoner was dissatisfied with the
particular course or treatment, or even a showing of medical malpractice, is
not the same as a showing of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
Walker v. Zunker, #01-2895, 30 Federal Appendix 625 (7th Cir. 2002). [2002
JB Jun]
Even if prison doctor acted properly in
postponing surgery for a pretrial detainee due to his pending appearance in
court on murder charges, he did not provide any reason for an alleged delay in
obtaining approval for medically needed surgery once he had been sentenced. He
therefore was not entitled to qualified immunity from the prisoner's Eighth
Amendment claim. Baker v. Blanchette, 186 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D. Conn. 2001).
[2002 JB Jun]
Jail's failure to send a deputy to accompany a
detainee to two hospitals to which he was transported by private ambulance for
possible drug overdose problems did not violate his constitutional rights, even
if sheriff's department employees were motivated, in this action, by a desire
to relieve the county of the burden of paying for the treatment. Detainee still
remained in the "constructive" custody of the sheriff's department, and
therefore was properly returned to the jail following treatment. Lutz v. Smith,
180 F. Supp. 2d 941 (N.D. Ohio 2001). [N/R]
Former Georgia inmate settles medical malpractice
claim against Department of Corrections for $280,000 concerning delay while in
custody of diagnosis and treatment of syndrome which, if not treated, can lead
to irreversible nerve damage in the bladder and bowel regions. Jury awards
$600,000 against private medical services corporation involved in providing of
care, and appeals court upholds trial court decision not to deduct settlement
with governmental entity from jury award since "any amount less than
$600,000 would be clearly inadequate in light of the overwhelming evidence of
the serious, permanent and debilitating injuries" defendants caused the
plaintiff to suffer. Ara Health Services v. Stitt, 551 S.E.2d 793 (Ga. App.
2001). [N/R]
The failure of a physician's assistant to x-ray a
prisoner's jaw, which would have revealed that it was broken, did not
constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, but merely a
disagreement between the prisoner and medical personnel as to what forms of
diagnostic treatment to utilize. Lindsay v. Dunleavy, 177 F. Supp. 2d 398 (E.D.
Pa. 2001). [2002 JB May]
Prison officials were granted permission to force
feed an inmate who went on hunger strike for three weeks at the point where his
hunger strike becomes threatening to his life. The prisoner stopped eating
because he said he was upset about his daughter's death, and the court granted
prison authorities the right to monitor his condition through blood tests and
to feed him intravenously or through a feeding tube at the point that his life
is in jeopardy. In Re Robert Weeks, Circuit Court, Livingston County, Ill.,
reported in The Chicago Tribune, p. 13 (Jan. 26, 2002). [N/R]
Seven-day delay between prison doctor's
observation of a "positive skin change" on diabetic detainee's foot
and subsequent treatment raised a genuine issue of whether there was deliberate
indifference to prisoner's serious medical needs in case where subsequent
infection resulted in two toe amputations and stump revision surgery. Spencer
v. Sheahan, 138 F. Supp. 2d 837 (N.D. Ill. 2001). [N/R]
A cut to a prisoner's finger, even if the skin was
"ripped" off, as the prisoner claimed, was not sufficiently serious
to be the basis for a federal civil rights claim for denial of adequate medical
care. Sonds v. St. Barnabas Correctional Health Services, 151 F. Supp. 2d 303
(S.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
Connecticut state Department of Corrections was
immune from a state prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit for alleged
violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from deliberate indifference
to his medical needs, but a state statute, C.G.S.A. Sec. 4-165, that provides
personal immunity for state employees could not be used to shield them from
claims for violation of federal law. Torrence v. Pelkey, 164 F. Supp. 2d 264
(D. Conn. 2001). [N/R]
A prisoner's claim that a medical technician at
the prison gave him "inadequate" treatment was insufficient to state
a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, which requires a showing of
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, rather than simply
"neglect" or "medical malpractice." Ford v. Page, 169 F.
Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Ill. 2001). [N/R]
Even if medical care is "ultimately"
provided, deliberate indifference to a serious medical need may still be shown
by a delay in the prisoner's treatment, even for a period of hours. A genuine
issue of material fact existed as to whether a claim for such delay existed
against a prison doctor, based on prisoner's suffering of severe pain in his
leg for four days for medical problem that ultimately required surgery and a
transmetatarsal amputation of his left leg. Seals v. Shah, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1378
(N.D. Ga. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner could not demonstrate that prison doctor
was "deliberately indifferent" to his serious medical needs when all
he alleged amounted to inadvertent failure to provide medical care, or, at
worst, negligence (ordinary medical malpractice). Additionally, prison doctor
relied on specialist's recommendation in determining treatment for avascular
necrosis of the femoral head. Palermo v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.,
148 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that officials' use of tear gas
to enforce lockdown was an excessive use of force was contradicted by videotape
showing that prisoners, including the plaintiff, did not return into their
cells when the order to do so was initially given. Prisoner's claim that he
"begged" for medical attention but that prison employees would not
help him was also contradicted by videotape which showed officers asking him
whether he needed medical attention and him replying that he did not.
Fairweather v. Giles Dalby Correctional Facility, 154 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D.
Tex. 2001). [2002 JB Mar]
Private company and individual employee
defendants who operated a correctional facility under a contract with the state
were "state actors" for purposes of a federal civil rights claim
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Palm v. Marr, 174 F. Supp. 2d 484 (N.D. Tex. 2001).
[N/R]
Claim that prison doctors failed to provide prisoner
with adequate treatment for his suffering from hemorrhoids between surgeries,
during a two year period in which they performed three surgical operations
stated a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Jones v.
Natesha, No. 00-C-4499, 151 F. Supp. 2d 938 (N.D. Ill. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner was not entitled to damages in lawsuit
alleging that county jail personnel performed catheterization to obtain a urine
sample for medical purposes without his consent. Saulsberry v. Maricopa County,
No. CIV 98-2035, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (D. Ariz. 2001). [N/R]
Inmate's claim that he was deprived of his
dentures and his prescribed heart medication were sufficient to state an Eighth
Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, even if
there was an adequate state law remedy for the deprivation of his property.
Wynn v. Southward, No. 00-2271, 251 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Jan]
Prisoner's chronic back injury was sufficiently
serious to support a claim for inadequate medical care, but he failed to show
that prison officials were "deliberately indifferent" to his medical
needs. Dobbin v. Artuz, 143 F. Supp. 2d 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner seeking to show that his medical care
was inadequate who wanted to introduce expert witness testimony had the burden
of proving the qualifications, training and experience of the witnesses were
sufficient to admit them as experts who could offer opinion testimony. Court
would not, however, bar such witnesses without first hearing evidence on those
qualifications. Hucker v. City of Beaumont, 147 F. Supp. 2d 565 (E.D. Tex.
2001). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue civil rights lawsuit
over alleged inadequate medical treatment when he failed to ever submit a
grievance under an available four stage prison administrative process. Massey
v. Helman, #00-1478, 259 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Jan]
Prisoner had to exhaust available administrative
grievances before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit over prison nurse's
alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs. "Substantial"
compliance with the exhaustion of remedies requirement was not enough. Wright
v. Hollingsworth, No. 99-40063, 260 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
299:167 Jail officials were not liable for
prisoner's death after his cancer reappeared and spread to his brain; far from
deliberate indifference, they transported him to and from outside medical
appointments and made sure that his medical records followed him when he was
transferred to a state facility. Phillips v. Monroe County, 143 F. Supp. 2d 663
(N.D. Miss. 2001).
299:166 Prisoner suffering from lodged bullet and
hernia was generally provided with adequate medical treatment and, indeed,
refused several accommodations offered for his medical conditions; appeals
court orders further proceedings, however, on whether officials conditioned a
needed surgical procedure on his signing of a complete release of all future
liability. Beck v. Skon, #00- 2027, 253 F.3d 330 (8th Cir. 2001).
299:163 Federal appeals court rules that HIV-
positive prisoner had a federal constitutional right to privacy for his medical
records and condition, but that prison officials were entitled to qualified
immunity for conduct that allegedly disclosed his conditions to others in 1995,
since this right was not then clearly established. Doe v. Delie, #99-3019, 257
F.3d 309 (3d Cir. 2001).
298:151 Failure to honor pretrial detainee's
request for a tuberculosis skin test did not amount to deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs; jail officials could properly limit such testing
to prisoners with symptoms or who were known to have come into contact with an
infected individual. Gibbs v. Grimmette, No. 98-60644, 254 F.3d 545 (5th Cir.
2001).
298:151 Private corporation providing medical
care to detainees in county correctional facility was not to be treated as a
"municipality" in detainee's federal civil rights lawsuit; plaintiff
could seek punitive damages and need not show a policy or custom of the
corporation caused the alleged deprivation to establish liability. Segler v.
Clark County, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (D. Nev. 2001).
298:147 Prisoner with impaired hearing could
pursue injunctive remedies against state Department of Corrections under
federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) on claim that it should have
provided a sign-language interpreter during disciplinary hearings and
administration of medical care. Randolph v. Rodgers, No. 00-1897, 253 F.3d 342
(8th Cir. 2001).
298:147 "Continuing violation" of jail
officials allegedly refusing to provide medical treatment for prisoner's hernia
meant that statute of limitations did not start to run until the last day on
which they refused to do so or the date that the inmate left jail; prisoner
could claim damages back to the first day of such refusal. Heard v. Sheahan,
No. 00-2908, 253 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2001).
297:135 Prisoner stated a claim against sheriff
based on assertion that he was not given any medical care for over 30 minutes
after his finger tip was severed when deputy shut a cell window door on it, and
was not even given his prescription medication to take with him when released
hours later. Ramsey v. Schauble, 141 F. Supp. 2d 584 (W.D.N.C. 2001).
294:86 Forcible administration of psychotropic
medication was lawful when based on treating psychiatrist's opinion that the
prisoner would pose a threat to himself or others without such medicine and a
treatment review
committee agreed after hearing the prisoner
describe the psychiatrist as the "anti-Christ." Fuller v. Dillon, No.
97- 4192, 236 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2001).
294:85 Asthmatic prisoner who received medication
on 899 occasions during 119 days was not subjected to inadequate medical
treatment; jail's policy of securing his asthma inhaler and providing it to him
upon request, was not medically unreasonable. Garvin v. Armstrong, No. 00-1263,
236 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2001).
295:102 Detainee with complete kidney failure did
not show that he suffered a detrimental effect from missing one scheduled
dialysis treatment during his incarceration. Napier v. Madison County,
Kentucky, No. 99-6067, 238 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 2001).
296:119 Failure to provide insulin for a diabetic
prisoners could be the basis for a deliberate indifference claim; civil rights
lawsuit allowed to go forward. Flowers v. Bennett, 135 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D.
Ala. 2000).
295:109 Prisoners claiming that excessive
exposure to second hand tobacco smoke constituted deliberate indifference to
their existing medical conditions and disability discrimination have to provide
individual proof; correctional officials who took some steps to restrict
smoking were entitled to qualified immunity from damages for allegedly exposing
prisoners to a risk of future harm. McIntyre v. Robinson, 126 F. Supp. 2d 394
(D. Md. 2000).
293:74 Paraplegic prisoner awarded $250,000 for
inadequate medical treatment provided by county jail, which resulted in him
needing three surgical procedures and suffering permanent scarring and
disfigurement as well as "extreme pain and suffering." Lawson v.
Dallas County, 112 F. Supp. 2d 616 (N.D. Tex. 2000).
293:74 Occasional lapse of deputies in
administering medication for prisoner's ear infection, although allegedly
leading to a permanent hearing loss, did not constitute deliberate indifference
when they did provide medication 162 times over a 20 day period and lacked
knowledge that an occasional "lapse" could have serious medical
consequences. Zentmyer v. Kendall County, Illinois, No. 99-1163, 220 F.3d 805
(7th Cir. 2000).
292:61 Spanish-speaking inmate had no right to a
"medically qualified" Spanish interpreter to communicate with medical
personnel; no violation of his privacy right was caused by the use of an inmate
interpreter. Cortes v. Johnson, 114 F. Supp. 2d 182 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
292:58 Forced administration of antipsychotic
medication to paranoid schizophrenic prisoner on 22 occasions without hearings
did not violate his rights when this was done in emergency situations where his
behavior posed an immediate threat to himself or others, and the decisions were
based on "professional medical judgment." Dancy v. Simms, 116 F.
Supp. 2d 652 (D. Md. 2000).
292:54 Federal appeals court orders "further
consideration" when trial judge's opinion granting summary judgment on a
wide variety of disability discrimination and other complaints by a
wheelchair-bound prisoner was so "sparse" as to fail to really
provide reasons for the decision. Beckford v. Portuondo, No. 00-0111, 234 F.3d
128 (2nd Cir. 2000).
292:51 Federal appeals court orders substitution
of ACLU National Prison Project attorneys for appointed lawyer for class of
HIV-positive inmates in Mississippi jails; order that previously provided that
ACLU attorneys could not contact class members violated constitutional
restrictions on free speech, association, and right to counsel. Gates v. Cook,
#99-60609, 234 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2000).
291:38 Medical personnel's decision to furnish
dialysis for prisoner suffering from kidney disease, rather than pursuing a
kidney transplant for him, did not violate prisoner's rights, despite medical
studies cited by prisoner indicating that transplant recipients had a better
chance of survival. Barron v. Keohane, #99-2201, 216 F.3d 692 (8th Cir. 2000).
291:38 Former prisoner, who sued over delay in
treatment of cheek abscess, was not a "prisoner" required to exhaust
available administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights
lawsuit. Burton v. City of Philadelphia, 121 F. Supp. 2d 810 (E.D. Pa. 2000).
291:37 Delay in diagnosing the true nature and
seriousness of a prisoner's injury may have been negligence, but it did not
show deliberate indifference to his medical needs and therefore could not be
the basis for a federal civil rights claim. Irby v. Frisnia, 119 F. Supp. 2d
130 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).
291:35 Prisoner with AIDS could not recover
damages for allegedly inadequate medical treatment when he refused to take an
HIV test to show that he needed requested drugs. Walker v. Peters, #97-1058,
233 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2000).
290:21 Correctional officials had a duty to
provide continuing medical services for a prisoner being paroled, at least
until the prisoner would be able to arrange for treatment on his own;
allegation that he was wrongfully paroled without provision for such services
when treating physician recommended follow-up surgery stated a claim for
violation of constitutional rights. Lugo v. Senkowski, 114 F. Supp. 2d 111
(N.D.N.Y. 2000).
291:35 Prisoner with AIDS could not recover
damages for allegedly inadequate medical treatment when he refused to take an
HIV test to show that he needed requested drugs. Walker v. Peters, #97-1058,
233 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2000).
289:9 Prisoner's failure to name the warden or
correctional commissioner in his administrative grievances concerning alleged
denial of prescribed treatment for his hernia did not constitute a failure to
exhaust administrative remedies so as to require dismissal of his subsequent
federal civil rights lawsuit against them. Brown v. Sikes, No. 98- 08727, 212
F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2000).
289:6 Federal prisoner could not sue doctors
employed by the Public Health Service for violation of his constitutional
rights; a lawsuit against the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act
was his exclusive remedy for any problems arising from his medical treatment by
them. Seminario Navarrete v. Vanyur, 110 F. Supp. 2d 605 (N.D. Ohio 2000).
289:3 Claim that prison doctor changed the
medication of a prisoner suffering from AIDS solely on the basis of cost,
causing serious side effects and shortened life expectancy, was sufficient to
state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Taylor v.
Barnett, 105 F. Supp. 2d 483 (E.D.Va. 2000).
[N/R] Trial court's dismissal with prejudice of
prisoner's state law medical negligence claim based on his failure to file an
adequate physician's certificate of merit was an abuse of discretion. Sherrod
v. Lingle, No. 99-3385, 223 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2000).
283:104 Doctor's actions in adjusting prisoner's
anti-seizure medication, and referring prisoner to a neurologist when he
complained of side effects, did not constitute "deliberate
indifference," but was rather aimed at attempting to determine the proper
dosage for treatment. Jolly v. Knudsen, #99-1928, 205 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir.
2000).
284:116 New Jersey Supreme Court rejects
employer's argument that it could fire a prison nurse for circumventing the
"chain of command" in complaining to her supervisor's supervisor of
inmates being provided with medicine and medical services without being charged
a legally required co-payment and being provided with medication under expired
doctor's orders; further proceedings ordered on nurse's
"whistleblowing" lawsuit. Fleming v. Correctional Healthcare
Solutions, Inc., 164 N.J. 90, 751 A.2d 1035 (2000).
286:147 County sheriff was not entitled to
qualified immunity from lawsuit by 52-year-old prisoner with AIDS challenging
an alleged policy of shackling all hospitalized inmates hand and foot 24 hours
a day despite also having an armed guard stationed at their hospital room;
lawsuit stated claims for denial of access to the courts, denial of equal
protection, and excessive bodily restraint of a pretrial detainee. May v.
Sheahan, #99-3140, 226 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2000).
286:147 Alleged delay in providing
Spanish-speaking prisoner with AIDS medication was not a violation of the
Eighth Amendment when there was no claim that the failure to adequately advise
him of prison medical policies was deliberate; prisoner had no clearly
established right to Spanish-speaking medical personnel, so prison officials
were not liable for an "invasion of privacy" allegedly resulting from
inmate's need to use other prisoners as interpreters. Leon v. Johnson, 96 F.
Supp. 2d 244 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
287:166 Illinois jury awards $9.6 million in
damages to estate of baby which died after her mother, a detainee at a county
jail, went into labor at the detention facility; lawsuit claimed that jail and
hospital provided inadequate medical care, believing prisoner's pains were
related to drug withdrawal rather than the pregnancy. LaSalle Bank,
Administrator, Estate of Hughes, v. County of Cook, No. 97L-12473, Cir. Ct.
Cook County, IL., Oct. 19, 2000, reported in Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, p. 3
(Oct. 20, 2000).
287:167 Maryland high court rules that prisoner
did not have to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a
medical malpractice lawsuit against a prison's private contractor medical
services provider; state statute requiring exhaustion of remedies only was
intended to apply to claims against governmental entities. Adamson v.
Correctional Medical Services, Inc., No 78, Sep. Term, 1999, 753 A.2d 501 (Md.
2000).
279:41 Jury awards $2 million to prisoner blinded
while operating trash compactor during prison work assignment; suit claimed a
delay in medical treatment contributed to blindness. Williams v. Patel, No.
96-1369, U.S. Dist. Ct (C.D. Ill.), reported in The National Law Journal, p.
A12 (Feb. 21, 2000). Subsequent decision denying new trial at: 104 F. Supp. 2d
984 (C.D. Ill. 2000).
281:68 Jail physician who had prescribed pain
medicine for detainee with back pain did not act with deliberate indifference
to detainee's serious medical needs; international human rights treaty
requiring that prisoners be treated humanely did not give prisoner a right to
any greater degree of medical care than otherwise already required under
federal law. Ralk v. Lincoln County, Georgia, 81 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (S.D. Ga.
2000).
281:71 Texas prisoner pursuing only money damages
for alleged failure to provide medical treatment for a ruptured eardrum did not
need to exhaust administrative remedies when state administrative remedies did
not allow for awards of money; appeals court panel urges full Fifth Circuit
federal appeals court to reconsider this rule, however. Wright v.
Hollingsworth, No. 99-40063,201 F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 2000).
282:86 Colorado Supreme Court vacates $180,000
judgment (reduced from $1.8 million jury award)
against state based on alleged negligence in treating prisoner's infection that
wound up leaving him partially paralyzed; prisoner did not comply with state
statute requiring approval of a medical professional for medical malpractice claims;
federal civil rights claims reinstated, however. Colorado, State of, v. Nieto,
No. 97SC876, 993 P.2d 493 (Colo. 2000).
283:105 Prisoner's complaint that county jail did
not have the number of paramedics that its own staffing policy called for did
not establish a federal civil rights violation; prisoner's bare allegation of
"delay" in medical tests and treatment did not make a federal claim
when he failed to show any serious medical need requiring treatment. Lewis v.
Sheahan, 35 F. Supp. 2d 633 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
[N/R] Prisoner failed to show that prison
officials demonstrated deliberate indifference to her medical needs after
alleged rape. Giron v. Corrections Corp. of America, No. 98-2231, 191 F.3d 1281
(10th Cir. 1999).
[N/R] Detainee with asthma failed to show that
her medical needs were "serious" while in custody. Olabisiomotosho v.
City of Houston, No. 98-20027, 185 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 1999).
[N/R] Complaint failed to state claim for
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against officer when it did
not allege that officer knew that inmate was suffering from a serious medical
condition. Jones v. Simek, No. 98- 2243, 193 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 1999).
[N/R] Prison physician who was allegedly fired
for opposing the medical treatment of some prisoners did not have standing to
assert prisoner's Eighth Amendment claims or their right to access to the
courts, since these claims related exclusively to the rights of the prisoners.
Massey v. Helman, #99-1459, 196 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 1999).
286:153 Sheriff's alleged policy of releasing
critically ill prisoners from custody in order to avoid expenses, even if true,
did not actually contribute to prisoner's death, so that he could not be held
liable for it. Chuffo v. Ramsey, 55 F. Supp. 2d 860 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
287:164 One-year statute of limitations for
bringing a federal civil rights lawsuit in Louisiana was extended during the
time the prisoner was pursuing his available administrative remedies, as he was
legally required to do under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; plaintiff stated
a claim for deliberate indifference to treatment of his broken jaw. Harris v.
Hegmann, No. 98-30617, 198 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 1999).
286:150 Failure to provide double amputee with a
wheelchair during his incarceration in a county jail did not violate the Eighth
Amendment since jail corridors were too narrow for wheelchair access and there
were legitimate security concerns about the presence of a wheelchair in the
general population; prisoner did, however, state possible claims for violation
of the Eighth Amendment and disability discrimination statutes based on alleged
"deliberate indifference" to his serious medical needs. Schmidt v.
Odell, 64 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. Kan. 1999).
284:121 Denying female prisoner access to
abortion services violated her rights and constituted deliberate indifference
to the serious medical needs of a pregnant prisoner. Doe v. Barron, 92 F. Supp.
2d 694 (S.D. Ohio 1999).
284:122 Federal appeals court orders further
proceedings on claim that deputy sheriff and jail's contract doctor were
deliberately indifferent to diabetic prisoner's need for treatment; claim
against doctor asserted that doctor ignored adverse reactions to medication
initially prescribed. Roberson v. Bradshaw, No. 98-2389, 198 F.3d 645 (8th Cir.
1999).
285:133 County jail nurse and doctor were not
entitled to qualified immunity from claim by deceased prisoner's estate that
they failed to respond to his consistent complaints over several months of
increasingly severe stomach pain by recognizing the need for further diagnosis;
prisoner died of cancer after early discharge from jail. McElligott v. Foley,
No. 98-3451, 182 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 1999).
282:89 Correctional officers were not liable for
failure to protect prisoner from being hit in the head by another inmate with a
softball bat; there were no prior fights or threats between the two prisoners
or anything else that would lead them to anticipate such an attack; no evidence
showed deliberate indifference to subsequent medical needs and there was no
liability for alleged decision to parole prisoner to avoid additional medical
expenses. Randolph v. State of Maryland, 74 F. Supp. 2d 537 (D. Md. 1999).
283:100 Arizona statutory amendment eliminating
tolling (extension) of statute of limitations for prisoner lawsuits did not
apply retroactively to bar prisoner's lawsuit over his medical treatment when
the tolling had already taken place before the law was changed, even when the
prisoner did not actually file his lawsuit until after the change was
effective. Tworivers v. Lewis, No. 97-15844, 174 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1999).
277:6 Sheriff and deputies were not liable for
arrestee's bizarre action of blinding himself by plucking out his eyes; while
prisoner's behavior was "increasingly erratic," there was nothing
which informed the defendants that he had an intent to harm himself; defendants
attempted to care for prisoner and did not act with deliberate indifference.
Sibley v. LeMaire, #98-30301, 184 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 1999).
279:41 Prison psychiatrists were not liable for
prisoner's suicide by overdosing on prescribed medication he hoarded, despite
their purported knowledge of his suicidal thoughts and medicine hoarding at
another facility; psychiatrists did not know that "pill line"
procedures were insufficient to prevent such hoarding. Williams v. Mehra, No.
97-1118, 186 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 1999).
279:44 Correctional officers could be liable for
assaults on male-to-female transsexual prisoner allegedly caused by the
disclosure of prisoner's condition to other inmates; defendants were not
entitled to qualified immunity on failure to protect claim, but one defendant
did have qualified immunity on privacy/confidentiality of medical records
claim. Powell v. Schriver, No. 97-2851, 175 F.3d 107 (2nd Cir. 1999).
» Article: "Managed health care in prisons
as cruel and unusual punishment," 90 (1) J. of Crim. L. & Crim.
195-237, Northw. Univ. Sch. of Law (1999).
274:149 Correctional officer's failure to provide
prisoner with a two-week supply of prescribed psychotropic medication while
releasing him could constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs; prisoner could experience delay in being able to obtain medication on
his own and therefore should be provided with enough to prevent problems.
Wakefield v. Thompson, #96-16323, 177 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 1999).
» Editor's Note: In an unpublished order on the
same date, the appeals court upheld the dismissal of the prisoner's claims
against three other defendants, based on the plaintiff's failure to allege that
they personally "knew of or participated" in denying the prisoner his
medication supply. These defendants were the director of the state Department of
Corrections, the ex-warden of the prison, and the staff psychiatrist who
prescribed the medication. Wakefield v. Thompson, #96-16323, 1999 U.S. App.
LEXIS 11089 (9th Cir.).
275:167 Co. jail's interest in preserving life,
preventing suicide, and maintaining institutional security and discipline
outweighed pretrial detainee's right to refuse kidney dialysis medical
treatment without which he would die; Iowa Supreme Court rules that county
sheriff was entitled to order compelling detainee to submit to the treatment.
Polk Co. Sheriff v. Iowa Dist. Court for Polk Co., No. 99-219, 594 N.W.2d 421
(Iowa 1999).
272:116 Federal appeals court reinstates HIV-
positive prisoner's lawsuit complaining of nine months of denial of outdoor
exercise and prison's requirement that he wear a face mask whenever leaving his
cell; such restrictions might constitute due process or Eighth Amendment
violations; failure to provide him with particular medication he wanted,
however, did not show deliberate indifference when he was receiving other
treatment. Perkins v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, #98-3005, 165 F.3d 803 (10th
Cir. 1999).
269:71 Federal jury awards $1.75 million to
mother of 15-year-old female juvenile detainee who died within a day of
complaining of a headache; treatment of four doses of Tylenol alleged to be
inadequate in light of medical examiner's opinion that girl exhibited "an
obvious neurological crisis." Edwards v. Williams, U.S. Dist. Ct., No.
5:97-CV-720-2 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 1999), reported in Fulton Co. Daily Record,
Feb. 12, 1999.
270:86 Jury awards $5.4 million to schizophrenic
veteran detained in solitary for 65 of 104 days he spent in county jail on
charges that were later dropped; lawsuit asserted that conditions in solitary
worsened his mental illness. Lawson v. Trowbridge, No. 96C 757 C (W.D. Wis.
March 10, 1999), reported in The National Law Journal, p. B15 (April 19, 1999).
270:86 Prisoner's allegation that correctional
officer deliberately refused to give him his pain medication prescribed by prison
doctor to alleviate side effects of anti- cancer radiation treatment stated
Eighth Amendment claim. Ralston v. McGovern, #97-2438, 167 F.3d 1160 (7th Cir.
1999).
265:8 Delay in treatment of prisoner's broken
hand, resulting in surgery becoming "impractical," even if it would
constitute medical malpractice, was insufficient to state a claim for a
violation of constitutional rights when prison officials did not have
"actual knowledge of the risk of harm" and then engage in "deliberate
inaction." Bryan v. Endell, #97-1393, 141 F.3d 1290 (8th Cir. 1998).
266:22 Prisoner may have had a "serious
medical need" to take his anti-seizure medication at the prescribed time,
but prison officials did not act with "deliberate indifference" by
delaying medication for two hours when there was no evidence they knew that
delay could be harmful. Jolly v. Badgett, #97-1588, 144 F.3d 573 (8th Cir.
1998).
267:39 Prison doctors' failure to diagnose tumor
which later caused prisoner to go blind was insufficient to assert a claim for
deliberate indifference to serious medical condition. Johnson v. Quinones, 145
F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 1998).
268:51 Medical personnel did not engage in
deliberate indifference to medical needs of HIV positive prisoner when they
refused to provide him with a specific name-brand dietary supplement he
preferred to the daily dietary supplement snack he was given. Polanco v.
Dworzack, 25 F.Supp.2d 148 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
268:53 Nursing director did not act with
deliberate indifference to medical needs of prisoner who had suffered chest
pains by requiring him to submit to various medical tests before determining
whether to summon doctor. McNeil v. Redman, 21 F.Supp.2d 884 (C.D. Ill. 1998).
271:101 Prisoner was properly assessed some costs
of medical treatment of other inmate and correctional officer required because
of his misconduct; Pennsylvania statute, however, limited assessment of other
inmate's medical expenses to two-thirds. Anderson v. Horn, 723 A.2d 254 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1998).
271:101 While prison doctor failed to diagnose
injured prisoner's fractured hip, this did not constitute deliberate
indifference, since he did not realize that an x-ray would have revealed this
injury; county did not act improperly in hiring doctor merely because of prior
medical malpractice claims. Bednar v. Co. of Schuylkill, 29 F.Supp.2d 250 (E.D.
Pa. 1998).
271:102 Nondangerous pretrial detainee was
entitled to a judicial hearing, rather than an administrative hearing, prior to
forcible application of antipsychotic drugs to make him competent to stand
trial. U.S. v. Brandon, #97- 3812, 156 F.3d 947 (6th Cir. 1998).
272:121 District of Columbia did not violate
Spanish-speaking prisoners' rights by failing to provide official interpreters
for all disciplinary, classification, housing, or other institutional hearings,
or by failing to have bilingual medical personnel. Franklin v. District of
Columbia, #97-7162, 163 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
272:124 Federal Bureau of Prisons Medical
Director not liable for alleged failure to provide treatment to transsexual
prisoner; medical director's job did not require him to diagnose individual
patients or prescribe treatment and he was entitled to qualified immunity for
properly relying on local medical personnel to provide appropriate treatment.
Farmer v. Moritsugu, #98-5087, 163 F.3d 610 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
273:135 Court rejects prisoner's assertion that
annual TB testing, rather than testing every six months, constituted deliberate
indifference to serious medical problems; prescribing of drug for active TB
which had potential liver-damaging side effects was also not deliberate
indifference, particularly when inmate was monitored for possible side effects
of drug. Maldonado v. Terhune, 28 F.Supp.2d 284 (D.N.J. 1998).
273:140 Prison classification specialist and
segregation unit supervisor without specific knowledge of prisoner's prior
alleged suicide attempt were not liable for failure to prevent his successful
suicide; prison clinical psychologist who failed to place prisoner on suicide
watch, but instead referred him to psychiatrist for further evaluation did not
act with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Greffey v. State of
Ala. Dept. of Corrections, 996 F.Supp. 1368 (S.D. Ala. 1998).
274:156 Mandatory administration of TB test did
not violate prisoner's right to religious freedom, despite her claim that the
Bible prohibited the "injection of artificial substances" into her
body; prison's legitimate interest in controlling infectious disease justified
forcible administration of test. Hasenmeier-McCarthy v. Rose, 986 F.Supp. 464
(S.D. Ohio 1998).
275:168 Prisoner's assertion that jail personnel
denied him his epilepsy medication for eleven days, resulting in him having a seizure,
despite knowing of his disease and his repeated requests for his medicine,
stated a claim for unconstitutional deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs. Hudson v. McHugh, #97-1437, 148 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 1998).
[N/R] Allegation that prison doctor mistook
prisoner patient for another patient, resulting in prisoner undergoing unneeded
treatment and not receiving treatment for her actual problems did not state a
federal civil rights claim, but, at most, negligence. Franklin v. Zain, #97-2342,
152 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 1998).
[N/R] It was not an abuse of discretion to refuse
female prisoner's request to proceed under a pseudonym in her lawsuit alleging
that she was denied funds for transportation and medical expenses for abortion
services; prisoner's identity was already known to defendant, state corrections
department, and correctional employees. M.M. v. Zavaras, #96-1507, 139 F.3d 798
(10th Cir. 1998).
[N/R] Prisoner adequately stated a federal
constitutional claim against doctors who allegedly treated him with an
experimental drug while he was unconscious following an accident; doctors would
have violated due process if they acted for research purposes rather than for
purposes of treating prisoner for his injuries. Johnson v. Meltzer, No.
95-56404, 134 F.3d 1393 (9th Cir. 1998).
263:171 Legitimate prison interest in preventing
the spread of tuberculosis justified requirement that prisoner either submit to
TB skin test, despite religious objection, or else be subjected to administrative
segregation for a one year period. Africa v. Horn, 998 F.Supp. 557 (E.D. Pa.
1998).
263:167 Prisoner's rights were not violated by
provision of prison-based dental care rather than hospital-based dental care;
he did not show any irreparable harm from place of treatment, and refused to
cooperate with tests which would have established whether or not he was
allergic, as he claimed, to anesthesia used in prison dental practice.
Darul-Islam v. DuBois, 997 F.Supp. 176 (D. Mass. 1998).
253:3 Correctional officer liable for $175,000
for shooting prisoner to break up altercation and prison doctor liable for
$50,000 for medical malpractice for treatment of prisoner's wounds; fact that
state of California would indemnify defendants for damages did not render
lawsuit one against the state, so defendants were not entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity in federal court. Ashker v. Calif. Depart. of Corrections,
112 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 1997).
253:7 Prison officials did not violate prisoner's
rights by delay in supplying him with sunglasses for light sensitivity when
there was medical testimony that this delay did not cause any further damage to
prisoner's eye. Crowley v. Hedgepeth, 109 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 1997).
253:7 Five dollar co-payment for medical visits
did not violate prisoner rights; medical care was not denied or delayed based
on the requirement and no fee was charged if prisoners did not have the funds
for the co-payment or in instances of life- threatening or emergency
situations. Gardner v. Wilson, 959 F.Supp. 1224 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
254:20 Nurse liable for $1,000 for delay in
sending pregnant prisoner in labor to hospital; federal appeals court overturns
$3,500 award of punitive damages, however, finding that conduct was not
sufficiently egregious to justify punitive award. Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d
778 (8th Cir. 1997).
257:70 Charging Florida pre-trial detainees for
medical and dental treatment, as well as for meals, did not violate any rights
under state statutes or the Florida state Constitution. Williams v. Ergle, 698
So.2d 1294 (Fla. App. 1997).
257:67 Jail inmate who received $5,000 damage
award against sheriff for failure to provide medical attention, as well as
injunctive relief against lack of fresh air in jail during hot weather, was
prevailing party entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. Crusoe v. Nunley, 699
So.2d 941 (Miss. 1997).
257:72 Sheriff and county were not liable for
cost of medical care of man taken into custody but taken to hospital because of
injuries suffered prior to arrest, and then released at hospital for the
receipt of medical treatment; West Virginia high court rules that there was no
duty to pay for medical treatment of someone not in the custody of the sheriff.
Hoover v. Blankenship, 487 S.E.2d 328 (W. Va. 1997).
258:86 Federal prison did not act negligently in
failing to prevent prisoner's exposure to TB bacteria when precautions complied
with Centers for Disease Control guidelines. McNeal v. United States, 979
F.Supp. 431 (N.D.W.Va. 1997).
259:101 Prison doctors' treatment of inmate's
back pain and skin infection did not exhibit "deliberate
indifference"; doctors attempted to provide treatment, but prisoner
allegedly refused some offered treatment and declined to take certain medication.
Logan v. Clarke, 119 F.3d 647 (8th Cir. 1997).
259:102 Private entity providing medical care to
prisoners at county detention facility was performing "functions
traditionally within the exclusive prerogative" of government; therefore,
there could be no liability imposed against it in federal civil rights lawsuit
in the absence of a showing that it had an official policy or custom resulting
in a violation of a prisoner's rights. Buckner v. Toro, 116 F.3d 450 (8th Cir.
1997).
260:119 Prisoner suffering from urinary and bowel
incontinence did not show that prison officials were "deliberately
indifferent" to his condition when they refused to allow him to shower
every day; prisoner was allowed to shower three times a week, which was more frequently
than other prisoners, and evidence showed that limiting him to these many
showers did not damage his health. De La Paz v. Peters, 959 F.Supp. 909 (N.D.
Ill. 1997).
260:120 Utah federal court upholds policies on
forcible administration of psychotropic drugs. Jurasek v. Payne, 959 F.Supp.
1441 (D. Utah 1997). » Editor's Note: Also see Martin v. Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene, 691 A.2d 252 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997) (forcible medication
of involuntary psychiatric patient allowed only when medication prevented
patient from being dangerous to himself or others in hospital) and Hightower v.
Olmstead, 959 F.Supp. 1549 (D. Ga. 1996) (upholding Georgia state forcible
medication policies for psychiatric patients).
261:137 Prisoner's federal lawsuit about alleged
delay in cataract surgery on his eye dismissed when he could not show that he
pursued all administrative appeals available to him in the California
correctional system. Alexandroai v. Calif. Dept. of Corrections, 985 F.Supp.
968 (S.D. Cal. 1997).
262:149 Prison medical director's testimony that
delay in giving prisoner his prescribed medication "may or may not"
have caused his dizziness was insufficient basis to uphold award of damages for
negligence to prisoner for injuries suffered when he fell on the ground in
recreation yard. Duffen v. State, 665 N.Y.S.2d 978 (A.D. 1997).
262:150 Pretrial detainee's right to adequate
medical treatment for kidney stone treatment was not violated by correctional
facility's policy requiring that he be transported to hospital by sheriff's
deputies rather than on-site correctional officers; he arrived at hospital
within 45 minutes of complaining of pain, and no one delayed or denied him
treatment or transport. Schreter v. Bednosky, 963 F.Supp. 216 (E.D.N.Y. 1997).
263:167 Ohio court awards $350,000 to estate and
family members of asthmatic inmate who died of cardiac arrest while waiting
five hours for transport to a hospital after prison doctor ordered that she be
taken there because of asthma attack. Norris v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation
& Correction, 695 N.E.2d 841 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1997).
[N/R] Private doctors and mental health providers
were not entitled to qualified immunity from lawsuit based on prisoner's
suicide; they were acting as private parties motivated by desire for profit,
rather than as governmental agents. McDuffie v. Hopper, 982 F.Supp. 817 (M.D.
Ala. 1997).
[N/R] Multiple individual instances of isolated
medical malpractice did not show deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs of prisoners. Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234 (8th Cir. 1997).
[N/R] Prisoner failed to show that nurse actually
had knowledge that he was inadequately supplied with adult undergarments for
his incontinence and deliberately ignored that need; occasional delays in
supply inmate with adult undergarments did not violate Eighth Amendment. Miller
v. Mich. Dept. of Corrections Health Care Providers, 986 F.Supp. 1078 (W.D.
Mich. 1997).
[N/R] Prisoner failed to show that prison doctor and
superintendent were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs;
superintendent was not involved in making medical treatment decisions and risk
of stroke from inmate's symptoms would not have been obvious to physician.
Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309 (8th Cir. 1997).
[N/R] Involuntary administration of psychotropic
drugs to insanity acquittee being treated in state hospital was properly based
on a finding of dangerousness; Missouri state statutes regulating use of
chemical restraints in state institutions did not create any liberty interests
beyond those already available under federal law. Morgan v. Rabun, 128 F.3d 694
(8th Cir. 1997).
256:55 Prisoner's assertion that he complained of
a toothache in April but that adequate treatment was not provided until
December, resulting in infection and loss of the tooth, stated a federal civil
rights claim against medical personnel and correctional officials who arguably
knew of the problem but failed to act to provide treatment. Moore v. Jackson,
123 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 1997).
256:56 Federal appeals court upholds award of
$9,500 to prisoner subjected to involuntary antipsychotic drug injections
without procedural due process requirements of notice and hearing. Doby v.
Hickerson, 120 F.3d 111 (8th Cir. 1997).
260:120 Utah federal court upholds policies on
forcible administration of psychotropic drugs. Jurasek v. Payne, 959 F.Supp.
1441 (D. Utah 1997). » Editor's Note: Also see Martin v. Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene, 691 A.2d 252 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997) (forcible medication
of involuntary psychiatric patient allowed only when medication prevented
patient from being dangerous to himself or others in hospital) and Hightower v.
Olmstead, 959 F.Supp. 1549 (D. Ga. 1996) (upholding Georgia state forcible
medication policies for psychiatric patients).
[N/R] Involuntary administration of psychotropic
drugs to insanity acquittee being treated in state hospital was properly based
on a finding of dangerousness; Missouri state statutes regulating use of
chemical restraints in state institutions did not create any liberty interests
beyond those already available under federal law. Morgan v. Rabun, 128 F.3d 694
(8th Cir. 1997).
241:3 Americans With Disabilities Act did not
provide a remedy for what amounted to an allegation of medical malpractice by a
paraplegic prisoner; trial court improperly granted summary judgment to
defendant prison officials on Eighth Amendment claim, however, when
unrepresented inmate was not warned of consequences of failure to present
evidence of his own in opposition to evidence officials presented in support of
motion for summary judgment. Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246 (7th Cir. 1996).
241:6 Correction Department policy requiring
convicted offenders seeking over the counter medication to buy them at
commissary was not cruel and unusual punishment, as long as medical personnel
were still free to provide such medication in instances where required to treat
"serious medical conditions." Hudgins v. DeBruyn, 922 F.Supp. 144
(S.D.Ind. 1996).
241:7 Prisoner who allegedly repeatedly asked for
medical appointment because of penile discharge and pain but was not seen for
nine months stated claim against doctor for deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs; alleged failure to adequate diagnose and treat sexually
transmitted disease after examination, however, was, at most, negligence, and
did not state further federal claim, although it was a basis for medical
malpractice claim under Texas state law. Jolly v. Klein, 923 F.Supp. 931 (S.D.
Tex. 1996).
242:22 Inmate's civil rights lawsuit over
officer's refusal to provide him with antacid tablets was properly dismissed;
facts showed that he was not suffering from a "serious medical
problem," but only indigestion. Jones v. Smith, 674 So.2d 151 (Fla. App.
1996).
242:22-23 Requiring convicted child molester to
submit to psychological examination as part of prison's classification process
did not violate prisoner's rights. Molesky v. Walter, 931 F.Supp. 1506 (E.D.
Wash. 1996). 243:41 Prisoner diagnosed as potential suicide risk by medical
personnel and prescribed psychotropic drugs stated a claim for deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs by asserting that psychiatrist at
facility he was transferred to discontinued his medication without evaluating
him or reviewing medical records. Steel v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 1996).
244:52 Psychiatrist was entitled to qualified
immunity for ordering single dose of anti-psychotic drug to prisoner suffering
seizure when it was feared that prisoner would injure himself; no prior case
law "clearly established" need to hold a prior hearing in such an
emergency situation. Hogan v. Carter, 85 F.3d 1113 (4th Cir. 1996).
245:69 Trial judge improperly dismissed
prisoner's lawsuit against officers for confiscating his prescribed
eye-glasses, needed to correct severe double vision and loss of depth
perception resulting from injury; prisoner had a "serious medical
need" for the glasses, and there was insufficient evidence to dismiss his
assertion that officers were subjectively aware of his medical condition. Koehl
v. Dalsheim, 85 F.3d 86 (2nd Cir. 1996).
245:70 Fact that federal prisoner suffering from
high blood pressure suffered a stroke when his prescribed medication was
withheld for twelve hours was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to conclude
that government breached a legal duty of care toward him; trial court
improperly dismissed prisoner's lawsuit. Jones v. United States, 91 F.3d 623
(3rd Cir. 1996).
246:84 Prisoner's claim that jail improperly
debited their inmate trust accounts for payment for medical services and
prescription drugs, despite their indigency, did not state a constitutional due
process claim when an adequate post- deprivation remedy existed under Texas
state law to seek reimbursement of the funds. Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91
(5th Cir. 1996).
246:86 Prison medical personnel's refusal to
furnish prisoner with ankle injury with "high performance" footwear
did not violate his constitutional rights; prisoner was furnished with
comprehensive medical treatment and inmate's disagreement with treatment
provided did not establish a constitutional claim. Alston v. Howard, 925
F.Supp. 1034 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). » Editor's Note: See also Williams v. Keane, 940
F.Supp. 566 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), in which the court held that the failure to
provide an inmate with a specific type of shoe insert for treatment of his
fallen arches did not constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need.
246:92 Prisoners serving sentences for sexual
offenses had no constitutional claim regarding denial of additional psychiatric
or psychological treatment, besides group therapy sessions they were already
given, in absence of medical evidence showing that they had a serious need for
such treatment. Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 1996).
247:104 Prisoner who lost hearing in infected,
bleeding ear after a three day delay in seeing physician was entitled to
$303,500 in damages; failure of correctional personnel to follow state's own
protocols for dealing with medical care of prisoners was a cause of the injury.
Kagan v. State of New York, 646 N.Y.S.2d 336 (A.D. 1996).
247:104 Regulation that classified inmates with
access to funds from outside family and friends as "non-indigent,"
and required them to pay fees for legal photocopying and medical co- payments,
did not violate their equal protection or due process rights. Robinson v.
Fauver, 932 F.Supp. 639 (D.N.J. 1996).
248:118 Jury instructions that a finding of
medical malpractice precluded a finding of "deliberate indifference"
for purposes of federal civil rights liability were incorrect; prisoner who did
not get surgery until two years after doctor discovered broken pins in his hip
granted new trial on claims against doctor. Hathaway v. Coughlin, 99 F.3d 550
(2nd Cir. 1996).
248:119 Doctor's removal of prisoner's toenail
without anesthetic did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Snipes v.
Detella, 95 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 1996).
249:135 Correctional officer not liable for
returning prisoner to confinement area, rather than taking him to doctor for
further treatment after he was released from prison emergency room; officer had
no reason to know that further treatment might be needed or that prisoner had
suffered a stroke. Shiflet v. Cornell, 933 F.Supp. 1549 (M.D. Fla. 1996).
250:157 Correctional officials not liable for
cellmate's alleged rape of prisoner; no deliberate indifference in placing two
inmates in the same cell when officials had no reason to know of any
substantial risk of such an assault; one hour delay in medical treatment
following alleged attack was not an Eighth Amendment violation when injuries
were minor and no harm resulted from delay. Langston v. Peters, 100 F.3d 1235
(7th Cir. 1996).
[N/R] Prison officials could not be held liable
for deliberate indifference to prisoner's serious medical needs if they were
not sufficiently informed of the circumstances as to require them to intervene.
Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 1996).
235:110 Federal appeals court orders trial of
prisoner's suit claiming that he and other prisoners were forced to clean up
prison attic filled with loose asbestos insulation for forty-five hours without
proper protective clothing/equipment; court rules that ordering prisoners to do
so, given evidence of knowledge of presence of asbestos, could be
"deliberate indifference" to prisoners' rights. Wallis v. Baldwin, 70
F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 1995).
235:107 Massachusetts appeals court reinstates
lawsuit by nonsmoking inmate with coronary and respiratory problems alleging
that prison officials' repeated celling of him with smoking inmates constituted
deliberate indifference to his serious medical problems. Jackson v.
Commissioner of Correction, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 566, 658 N.E.2d 981 (1995).
229:13 Prisoner whose right lung was removed
because of cancer did not establish that prison officials acted with deliberate
indifference by housing him with smokers. Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668 (7th
Cir. 1995).
235:106 Keeping Illinois state prisoner in
disciplinary segregation for 19 days longer than maximum punishment period
allowed under state law did not constitute federal constitutional rights
violation; forcing inmate to choose between medically requested lower bunk
available in segregation unit or transfer out to protective custody unit where
no such bunk was available was not cruel and unusual punishment. Williams v.
Ramos, 71 F.3d 1246 (7th Cir. 1995).
37:139 Update: federal appeals court upholds
preliminary injunction against continued medical keeplock of Rastafarian inmate
who had religious objections to submitting to mandatory TB testing. Jolly v.
Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468 (2nd Cir. 1996).
234:92 Rastafarian inmate who refused to submit
to mandatory TB testing based on religious objection ordered released from
medical keeplock; plaintiff showed likelihood of proving both that such
continued confinement violated his rights under the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act and violated his 8th Amendment right against cruel and unusual
punishment. Jolly v. Coughlin, 894 F.Supp. 734 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
229:10 Federal court dismissed ex-prisoner's
civil rights lawsuit over alleged inadequate medical care because he became a
fugitive from justice, ceasing to report to his Parole Officer. Griffin v. City
of N.Y. Correctional Com'r, 882 F.Supp. 295 (E.D.N.Y. 1995).
235:100 Prison employees were entitled to
qualified immunity for inserting catheter into urinary tract of prisoner who
said he was unable to produce urine sample after suspected of drug use. Sparks
v. Stutler, 71 F.3d 259 (7th Cir. 1995).
239:163 Federal appeals court rules that
Americans With Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act do not apply to prisoner
employment situations. White v. State of Colorado, 82 F.3d 364 (10th Cir.
1996).
230:23 Prisoner's claim that being detained in a
small shower stall during a cell shakedown aggravated his asthma did not
present a federal constitutional claim when available medical evidence did not
support this contention. Aswegan v. Henry, 49 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 1995).
231:39 City, rather than county, was liable for
costs of medical treatment to arrestees until they were placed in the physical
or technical custody of the county sheriff. Chicago Osteopathic Medical Centers
v. City of Chicago, 271 Ill. App. 3d 165, 648 N.E.2d 293, 207 Ill. Dec. 837,
1995 Ill App. Lexis 147 (1995).
231:39 Diabetic inmate who refused to eat or take
insulin could lawfully be compelled to eat and take medication; inmate's
refusal of medical treatment was "blackmail" aimed at prison
officials in attempt to regain prior job and institutional placement and
prison's interest in avoiding "devastating" future healthcare costs
was substantial. Schuetzle, State Ex Rel., v. Vogel, 537 N.W.2d 358 (N.D.
1995).
231:40 Trial court erred in dismissing
transsexual prisoner's suit complaining that he was receiving no medical
treatment for his condition, even if he did not have absolute right to
requested treatment of administration of estrogen hormone. Brown v. Zavaras, 63
F.3d 967 (10th Cir. 1995).
232:54 Prison doctors were entitled to raise
qualified immunity defense even if they were employed by private employer who
had contracted with state to provide medical services to prisoners; it was not
clearly established that alleged repeated acts of medical malpractice
constituted deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Williams v.
O'Leary, 55 F.3d 320 (7th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified
(Good-Faith) Immunity].
232:55 Inmate's disagreement with medical
treatment provided at prison, and belief that medication previously prescribed
by a prior physician would be more appropriate did not show violation of Eighth
Amendment; prison officials supplied medications recommended by doctor and
approved of by psychiatrist. Vaughan v. Lacey, 49 F.3d 1344 (8th Cir. 1995).
233:70 Mere one-time failure to review medical
records during treatment of prisoner did not constitute deliberate indifference
to serious medical problems. Sanderfer v. Nichols, 62 F.3d 151 (6th Cir. 1995).
234:89 Alleged failure to send inmate to a
medical specialist for two months after he was unable to swallow or keep solid
food down, refusal to provide liquid diet, and refusal to make accommodations
for his medical conditions stated claims against physicians' assistants and
correctional officers for deliberate indifference; claims against warden and
assistant warden, however, were properly dismissed. Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56
F.3d 35 (8th Cir. 1995).
235:102 Court rejects prisoner's claim that
rescheduling his non-emergency routine care dental appointment for three weeks
later violated his federal constitutional rights. Malsh v. Austin, 901 F.Supp.
757 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
236:119 Forcible administration of psychotropic
drugs to prisoner was justified, federal appeals court rules, when prior
experience had shown that he became delusional and psychotic when medication
was eliminated or reduced. Walton v. Norris, 59 F.3d 67 (8th Cir. 1995).
236:120 Prison medical personnel did not engage
in "deliberate indifference" to a serious medical need in making
determination that prisoner suffering from "acute gastrointestinal
distress," later cured by over-the-counter medication, was not entitled to
treatment for a "medical emergency" outside of normal clinic
"sick call" hours. Vaughn v. Kerley, 897 F.Supp. 1413 (M.D.Fla.
1995).
237:136 Wisconsin Supreme court rules that county
and sheriff discharged duty, under state law, to provide appropriate medical
care and treatment to detainee by having him examined by nurse when he
complained of possible appendix problem, despite fact that nurse recommended no
immediate treatment at that time and that surgical removal of appendix became
necessary a day later after detainee's release. Swatek v. Co. of Dane, 531
N.W.2d 45 (Wis. 1995).
238:157 Co. approves $2.5 million settlement to
jail detainee who claimed he was "wrongly" released from jail after
charges were dismissed, despite paranoid schizophrenic condition he claimed
required further evaluation, and was struck by train three hours later; suit
also asserted that detainee was not provided with required medication during
confinement. Penuela v. Co. of Los Angeles, No. BC048487, Superior Ct., Los
Angeles, Cal., reported in Los Ang. Daily Jour., p. 2 (May 15, 1996).
239:167 Detention facility's interest in
protecting pre- trial detainee and providing him with adequate medical care outweighed
his right to refuse administration of insulin that medical personnel prescribed
to treat his diabetes; federal appeals court upholds forcible administration of
insulin. Roper v. Grayson, 81 F.3d 124 (10th Cir. 1996).
[N/R] Medical evidence did not support prisoner's
claim of inadequate medical care for injured hand; delays experienced in
treatment at times were medically acceptable. Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324
(8th Cir. 1995).
[N/R] Evidence was inadequate to establish
deliberate indifference to inmate's serious medical needs; ankle condition
inmate experienced was not serious. Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232 (9th
Cir. 1995).
225:139 Federal appeals court rules that trial
court did not have authority to order state prison officials to transport
prisoner 200 miles away for medical examination needed as evidence in federal
civil rights suit against county jail facility. Ivey v. Harney 47 F.3d 181 (7th
Cir. 1995).
217:7 Louisiana appeals court overturns $100,000
award to family of arrestee who died in jail from overdose of
"Ecstasy" drug; sheriff did not have a duty to provide medical
treatment to every intoxicated person arrested. Brown v. Lee, 639 So.2d 897
(La. App. 1994).
217:8 Officers were not liable for ordering inmate
with a double hernia to return to work scrubbing floors; they did not act with
"deliberate indifference" to his serious medical needs when they did
not know he had a hernia. Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 1994).
220:52 Diabetic inmate's disagreement with
insulin dosage prescribed and preference for a different diet did not show
Eighth Amendment violation of his right to adequate medical treatment. Upp v.
Shartrand, 861 F.Supp. 1022 (D. Kan. 1994).
221:70 Repeated acts of medical negligence,
standing alone, do not constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs in violation of Eighth Amendment, but federal appeals court rules that
"the pattern" of such acts may be used to prove that each act was
committed with deliberate indifference. Brooks v. Celeste, 39 F.3d 125 (6th
Cir. 1994).
222:88 Prison medical personnel were not
deliberately indifferent in failing to take further steps to make sure that
prisoner with brain seizure disorder took his prescribed medication; no liability
for prisoner's fatal brain seizure when he failed to do so. Whitley v. Lewis,
844 F.Supp. 276 (E.D. Va. 1994).
223:100 Dietician's alleged failure to provide
diabetic prisoner with medically recommended diet after prisoner complained
stated claim for violation of prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights. Taylor v.
Anderson, 868 F.Supp. 1024 (N.D. Ill. 1994).
223:105 Private doctor providing medical care to
inmate at his own office off the prison grounds, without any contractual
obligation to do so, acted under "color of state law" for purposes of
a federal civil rights lawsuit against him for inadequate medical care; private
company and its employees who provided medical care to prisoners under contract
with state were not entitled to assert qualified immunity in civil rights
lawsuit. Manis v. Corrections Corporation of America, 859 F.Supp. 302 (M.D.
Tenn. 1994); Conner v. Donnelly, M.D., 42 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 1994).
224:119 Housing prisoner with cellmate who tested
positive on "ppd" skin test for exposure to tuberculosis, but who did
not have active, infectious tuberculosis, did not violate his constitutional
rights. Karlovetz v. Baker, 872 F.Supp. 465 (N.D. Ohio 1994).
224:120 Mistakenly re-testing prisoner for TB who
had previously tested positive was, at most, negligence, rather than deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. Holmes v. Fell, 856 F.Supp. 181
(S.D.N.Y. 1994).
225:131 Sheriff and sheriff's assistant were
entitled to qualified immunity in suit alleging that they were deliberately
indifferent to needs of obese disabled prisoner in 1988. Parsons v. Wright, 649
A.2d 1108 (Me. 1994).
225:133 Oregon prisoner awarded $5,000 in damages
against prison medical officer for two year delay in providing surgery of a hernia
suffered prior to incarceration; prison's duty to provide medical care extended
to conditions which cause pain and anxiety even if no permanent physical harm
was caused by delay in operation. Delker v. Maass, 843 F.Supp. 1390 (D. Or.
1994).
225:134 Co. could not be held vicariously liable
for alleged negligence of sheriff in failing to provide medical treatment to
jail inmate who died, Illinois Supreme Court rules. Moy v. Co. of Cook, 159
Ill. 2d 519, 640 N.E.2d 926 (1994).
226:152 Correctional officer liable for
confiscating prisoner's epilepsy medicine and flushing it down the toilet;
appeals court orders new trial on damages, however, after jury awards only $1
in nominal damages following erroneous admission of nurse's testimony that inmate
sometimes did not pick up his medication; nurse's testimony was not based on
personal knowledge. Kemp v. Balboa, 23 F.3d 211 (8th Cir. 1994).
226:153 Sheriff was not entitled to qualified
immunity in prisoner's suit claiming that he delayed prisoner's diagnostic test
and hand surgery for several weeks in order to seek transfer of prisoner from
county jail to state system for the medical treatment. Harris v. Coweta Co., 21
F.3d 388 (11th Cir. 1994).
227:167 Brief delays in treating prisoner's broken
finger and prisoner's disagreement with doctor's decision as to what kind of
treatment to pursue did not support prisoner's claim that prison officials were
"deliberately indifferent" towards his serious medical needs. Sherrer
v. Stephens, 50 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 1994).
227:167 Prison dentist's knowledge of prisoner's
pain, combined with alleged three week delay in providing surgical treatment
for impacted wisdom tooth, was sufficient basis to support prisoner's claim for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966
(8th Cir. 1995).
[N/R] Doctor's initial failure to diagnose
inmate's broken bone constituted, at worst, negligent malpractice, and was not
egregious enough to constitute Eighth Amendment violation. Willis v. Clemente,
882 F.Supp. 133 (S.D. Ind. 1994). [N/R] Delay between time inmate's drug
overdose condition was recognized and time ambulance was called did not
constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical condition; jail officials
not liable for inmate's death. Ruark v. Drury, 21 F.3d 213 (8th Cir. 1994).
[N/R] Warden could not be held liable for alleged
delay in inmate's access to medical care for his injuries when there was no
evidence that the warden was responsible, in any way, for the delay. Williams
v. Mueller, 13 F.3d 1214 (8th Cir. 1994).
[N/R] Handcuffing prisoner from behind violated
Eighth Amendment when inmate told officers he suffered from a medical condition
that precluded such restraint and officer intentionally inflicted pain on
inmate for a significant period of time. Aldape v. Lambert, 34 F.3d 619 (8th
Cir. 1994).
Prisoner's complaint that prison officials were
"deliberately indifferent" to his leg cramps and swelling were
"frivolous" when he was, in fact, given consistent medical care and
simply disagreed with the medical staff concerning the proper course of
treatment. Johnson v. Stephan, 6 F.3d 691 (10th Cir. 1993).
Prison officials were not "deliberately
indifferent" to prisoner's kidney stone ailment when the only evidence of
such ailment was his "self-diagnosis," which available medical tests
did not confirm. Kayser v. Caspari, 16 F.3d 280 (8th Cir. 1994).
Deliberate refusal to provide feeding assistance
to inmate with ALS who had trouble feeding himself would be an Eighth Amendment
violation, as would failure to transfer him to another institution where such
assistance was readily available. Santiago v. Leik, 508 N.W.2d 456 (Wis. App.
1993).
Sheriff was not entitled to summary judgment on
the basis of qualified immunity from prisoner's suit when there was a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether he deliberately delayed prisoner's medical
treatment for hand injury during his preconviction incarceration. Harris v.
Coweta Co., 5 F.3d 507 (11th Cir. 1993).
Prisoner's suit alleging delay in his medical
treatment was properly dismissed as frivolous when no deliberate indifference
or resulting harm were claimed; claim that prisoner was justified in refusal to
work because of physical condition was properly viewed as frivolous when this
condition was adequately considered in assigning his work detail. Mendoza v.
Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1993).
Correctional officials were not deliberately
indifferent to serious medical needs by failing to provide inmate with medical
attention between time inmate was discharged from jail and his initial
examination at prison. Scurry v. Fernandez, 841 F.Supp. 12 (D.D.C. 1993).
Judgment against state for damages caused by
physician's alleged malpractice against prisoner during surgical procedure at
correctional facility overturned; state should have been allowed to present
evidence that nurses and physician's assistants customarily advised inmates
that treating physicians were not state employees. Soltis v. State, 594
N.Y.S.2d 433 (A.D. 1993).
Evidence did not establish prison guard's
deliberate indifference to inmate's serious medical needs when there was no
evidence that guards were in a position to act meaningfully in regard to
medical needs of inmate. Smith v. Barry, 985 F.2d 180 (4th Cir. 1993).
Evidence did not even approach a showing of
deliberate indifference in provision of medical care; prisoner's
"prodigious" use of medical facilities showed that he received a
degree of medical treatment "which would be envied" by the majority
of the non-incarcerated adult population of the country. Handy v. Price, 996
F.2d 1064 (10th Cir. 1993).
Jury question was presented as to whether prison
guards had improperly denied prisoner injured during fight to go to infirmary
to receive treatment; complaint should not have been dismissed. Pettengill v.
Veasey, 983 F.2d 130 (8th Cir. 1993).
Dispensing medicine to inmate in state penal
institution was an action for which state employee was exempt from liability
under Oklahoma state law. Medina v. State, 871 P.2d 1379 (Okl. 1993).
A month long delay in refilling a pretrial
detainee's prescription for an anti-depressant medication after he was
transferred to a new facility did not show a violation of his constitutional
right to adequate medical care, and was negligent, at most. Ervin v. Busby, 992
F.2d 147 (8th Cir. 1993).
Pretrial detainee's claim that jail personnel
took away his crutches when he had a broken ankle, that he was placed in solitary
confinement due to his medical condition, and that a request that he be
transferred to the infirmary was denied did not state a claim for a violation
of his constitutional right to adequate medical care. Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d
151 (8th Cir. 1993).
Paraplegic jail inmate awarded $11,000 for
alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Hicks v. Frey,
992 F.2d 1450 (6th Cir. 1993).
Prisoner's civil rights suit alleging that prison
nurse refused to treat serious hand injury because it was suffered prior to his
entry into prison was improperly dismissed; if true, allegation would state a
claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Watson v. Caton,
984 F.2d 537 (1st Cir. 1993).
Quadriplegic prisoner in California had a right
to refuse to submit to feeding and medication, even if it meant his death;
California Supreme Court rules that right to refuse treatment and food does not
depend on prisoner's condition being terminal. Thor v. Superior Court (Andrew),
21 Cal.Rptr.2d 357, 855 P.2d 375 (Cal. 1993).
Detainee who lost an eye receives $273,000
settlement in suit alleging unreasonable use of aerosol spray and inadequate
medical care while in custody. Goodman v. Montgomery Co., U.S. Dist. M.D. Ala.,
No. CV-92-H-1170-N (May 29, 1993), reported in 37 ATLA L. Rep. 56 (March 1994).
Current procedures in Illinois for forcing a
prisoner to take anti-psychotic drugs upheld as constitutional; prison
officials were entitled to qualified immunity for acting under prior rules.
Sullivan v. Flannigan, 8 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 1993).
Inmate's claim that he was not provided with
medically prescribed eyeglasses stated a claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. Ennis v. Dasovick, 506 N.W.2d 386 (N.D. 1993).
Prisoner's lawsuit claiming that administration
of additional tuberculosis vaccination caused him to break out in a rash was
properly dismissed as frivolous; nurse's action was intended to help protect
prisoner against disease, rather than being "deliberately
indifferent" to serious medical needs. Brown v. Briscoe, 998 F.2d 201 (4th
Cir. 1993).
Jail physician who made pretrial detainee take
antipsychotic medication against his will was not liable; law giving detainee
the right to refuse the administration of such medication was not "clearly
established" in 1989. Leeks v. Cunningham, 997 F.2d 1330 (11th Cir. 1993).
Prison officials' refusal to provide eyeglasses
to prisoner with 20/400 eyesight because he did not have funds to pay for the
glasses constituted deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Benter
v. Peck, 825 F.Supp. 1411 (S.D. Iowa 1993).
Alleged refusal to provide medical treatment to
injured detainee held pursuant to a felony warrant from another state would
constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; jail officials
were not entitled to qualified immunity. Foulks v. Cole Co., Missouri, 991 F.2d
454 (8th Cir. 1993).
Mandatory TB testing of inmates after state
public health officials feared a public health emergency did not violate
prisoners' rights not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment; alleged
"unsanitary conditions" in which tests were administered did not show
deliberate indifference to serious medical need. Langton v. Commissioner of
Correction, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 564, 614 N.E.2d 1002 (1993).
Inmate rendered permanently impotent, allegedly
by drug treatment for hypertension, could not collect damages for medical
malpractice from state; inmate did not show lack of informed consent to drug
treatment nor show that any delay in providing him with treatment caused his
impotence. Marchione v. State, 598 N.Y.S.2d 592 (A.D. 1993).
Prisoner's complaint that he should have received
different medication for his pain resulting from ankle injury, and treatment by
a specialist, did not show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
when prisoner did receive an operation and pain medication. Ledoux v. Davies,
961 F.2d 1536 (10th Cir. 1992).
City liable for $150,000 for in-custody death of
diabetic inmate arrested for public drunkenness. Fruge v. City of New Orleans,
613 So.2d 811 (La. App. 1993).
Virginia state involvement in the administration
of local jails was so pervasive that prisoner's federal civil rights suit against
jail for alleged inadequate medical treatment was barred by the Eleventh
Amendment providing immunity from federal suit for states and state agencies.
McCoy v. Chesapeake Correctional Center, 788 F.Supp. 890 (E.D. Va. 1992).
Prison medical director liable for $50,000 for
failing to admit paralyzed prison inmate to the infirmary, the only place in
the prison allowing access to wheelchairs. Weeks v. Chaboudy, 984 F.2d 185 (6th
Cir. 1993).
Requirement that inmate report to medical unit
within 30 minute period to receive anti-seizure medication was not deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. Moyers v. Buescher, 806 F.Supp. 218
(E.D. Mo. 1992).
Insulin-dependent diabetic who had not taken his
medication did not have a claim for deliberate indifference to his medical
needs simply because he did not receive his medicine until the morning after he
was booked into the jail; provision of some insulin the following morning, even
if the wrong dosage, refuted a claim of deliberate indifference. Aaron v.
Finkbinder, 793 F.Supp. 734 (E.D. Mich. 1992).
Officer's action of requiring prisoner with an
ankle fracture to walk to the hospital was not deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs; appeals court overturns $500 damage award to plaintiff
inmate. Walker v. Butler, 967 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1992).
Requiring inmate with back injury to stand
outside his cell during cell search, and withholding whirlpool treatments
ordered by doctor was not a violation of inmate's constitutional rights.
Johnson v. Vondera, 790 F.Supp. 898 (E.D. Mo. 1992).
Deputy warden and prison security director liable
for $2,000 for deliberate indifference to 70-year-old prisoner's need to
receive prescription medications. Aswegan v. Bruhl, 965 F.2d 676 (8th Cir.
1992).
Prisoner awarded $95,000 in compensatory damages
and $900,000 in punitive damages against prison deputy superintendent who was
deliberately indifferent to prisoner not receiving his preventative medicine
after positive tuberculin skin test, increasing risk of active tuberculosis;
appeals court overturns trial court's "remittitur" of punitive
damages. Hill v. Marshall, 962 F.2d 1209 (6th Cir. 1992).
North Carolina Supreme Court holds that state's
duty to provide medical care to inmates is nondelegable; Department of
Corrections would be liable, under state Tort Claims Act, for any negligence by
"independent contractor" physician hired by state to treat inmates.
Medley v. N.C. Dept. of Correction, 412 S.E.2d 654 (N.C. 1992).
Federal prisoners don't need to exhaust Bureau of
Prisons' grievance procedures before filing a civil rights action for money
damages in court. McCarthy v. Madigan, 60 U.S. L.W. 4191 (March 4, 1992).
Misdiagnosis of prisoner with nose bleeds as
having leukemia was not cruel and unusual punishment, even if negligent. Fenner
v. Moran, 772 F.Supp. 59 (D.R.I. 1991).
Prison was liable for diabetic inmate's loss of
his left leg resulting from inadequate medical treatment; award of $950,000
overturned as excessive because expert testifying on loss of future earnings
wrongly assumed prison would be liable for loss of both legs. Dist. of Columbia
v. Anderson, 597 A.2d 1295 (D.C. App. 1991).
Federal trial judge sets aside jury award of
$10,000 in punitive damages and $0 in actual damages to prisoner allegedly
denied medical care for gunshot wound while in custody, whose wound had
completely healed. Meek v. Orton, 773 F.Supp. 172 (E.D. Mo. 1991).
Prison doctors did not violate inmate's
constitutional rights by prescribing a drug for tuberculosis prevention without
informing him of a possible negative impact on his eyesight; prison health care
administrator was also not liable. McAleese v. Owens, 770 F.Supp. 225 (M.D. Pa.
1991).
Inmate who kidnapped, sexually abused, and
murdered 13-yearold girl had no constitutional right to psychiatric treatment;
failure to provide treatment specially geared to sexual offenders was not
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Bailey v. Gardebring, 940
F.2d 1150 (8th Cir. 1991).
Several day delay in treating inmate's infected
toes, and nurse's refusal to wash inmate's dirty feet for him did not
constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Andrews v. Glenn, 768 F.Supp. 668
(C.D. Ill. 1991).
Widow of inmate who died from blood clot while in
restraints in jail psychiatric ward to receive lifetime pension worth $400,000
as settlement of lawsuit against county. Bruaw v. Los Angeles Co., U.S. Dist.
Ct., L.A. Cal. reported in Los Angeles Times p. B1 (April 27, 1991).
Prison officials' response to tuberculosis
outbreaks at facility showed deliberate indifference to inmates' serious
medical needs; their actions to remedy the situation since the filing of the
lawsuit justified a denial of injunctive relief, but plaintiff prisoners were
still entitled to an award of $210,303 in attorneys' fees. DeGidio v. Pung, 920
F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990).
Prison officials' refusal to transfer inmate to
asbestosfree environment after he requested that they do so could constitute deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs; defendant officials were not entitled to
qualified immunity from liability. Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir.
1990).
Family of DUI detainee who died in custody from
seizure awarded $5.4 million for city's alleged negligence in handling his
medical condition. Bouchard v. City of Houston, state district court, Houston,
Texas, reported in Houston Chronicle, June 5, 1991.
Federal prison officials and employees entitled
to qualified immunity for failing to facilitate female bank robber's desire to
obtain an abortion. Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532 (6th Cir. 1991).
Requiring inmate to wait in line in dining hall,
rather than receiving meals in infirmary, eighteen months after hip surgery did
not violate Eighth Amendment. Varnado v. Collins, 920 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1991).
Administrative delays in scheduling female
detainee's abortion, resulting in birth of child, did not deprive her of her
right to privacy or due process; delay was mere negligence at worst,
insufficient to show a constitutional violation. Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d
979 (2nd Cir. 1991).
Inmate blinded in one eye by glaucoma awarded
$225,000 for jail medical director's failure to provide him prescription eye
drops. Smith v. Franklin, U.S. Dist. Ct., Atlanta, Gal., reported in the
Atlanta Journal, Feb. 2, 1991.
Prison superintendent was not entitled to
qualified immunity in inadequate medical care lawsuit by widow of inmate who
died from severe asthma attack, although prison doctor was protected by
qualified immunity. Howell v. Evans, 922 F.2d 712 (11th Cir. 1991).
Four-day delay in arranging for admission of
prisoner with fractured jaw to outside hospital for surgery did not show
deliberate indifference to inmate's serious medical needs. Mowrey v. Romero,
749 F.Supp. 1097 (M.D. Fla. 1990).
Former federal prisoner with diabetes awarded
$500,000 for failure of prison medical staff to provide proper diagnosis and
treatment of foot infection which led to below-the-knee amputation of his right
leg. Williams v. U.S., 747 F.Supp. 967 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
Court overturns award of $4,000 to inmate for
emotional distress caused by incorrect diagnosis that he had syphilis; $2,000
awarded for unnecessary treatment and counseling. Thorpe v. State Dept. of
Corrections, 575 A.2d 351 (N.H. 1990).
State liable for $100,000 for improper delay in
diagnosing and treating prisoner for his knee injury for three and one-half
years. Stanback v. State, 557 N.Y.S.2d 433 (A.D. 1990).
Prison ordered to provide female hormones to male
prisoner who wishes to become a woman; psychological disorder was serious
medical need. Phillips v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 731 F.Supp. 792
(W.D. Michigan 1990).
Allegation of repeated, long-term negligent
treatment of medical condition might amount to deliberate indifference
sufficient for civil rights claim. Kelley v. McGinnis, 899 F.2d 612 (7th Cir.
1990).
Maryland Co. was responsible for costs of
furnishing medical care to indigents injured while resisting arrest. Harford
Co. v. University of Maryland Medical Systems Corp., 569 A.2d 649 (Md. 1990).
Prisoner who died of asthma attack was not
subject to deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Lopez Morales v. Otero
de Ramos, 725 F.Supp. 106 (D. Puerto Rico 1989).
Prisoner evaluated by six doctors after prison
assault did not suffer deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Taylor v.
Turner, 884 F.2d 1088 (8th Cir. 1989).
Alleged failure to provide medical care to
stabbed inmate for two hours after assault stated claim for "deliberate
indifference" to medical needs. Reed v. Dunham, 893 F.2d 285 (10th Cir.
1990).
Non-smoking inmate's exposure to
"passive" tobacco smoke did not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment. Caldwell v. Quinlan, 729 F.Supp. 4 (D.D.C. 1990).
Convicted rapist/kidnapper, rendered paraplegic
through shooting by his victim, awarded $10,000 in damages against sheriff for
inadequate medical care in jail. Leach v. Shelby Co. Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241
(6th Cir. 1989).
U.S. Supreme Court upholds forced treatment of
mentally ill inmate with antipsychotic drugs without judicial hearing; state's
provision for prison administrative hearing met due process requirements.
Washington v. Harper, 110 S.Ct. 1028 (1990).
Prisoner who suffered permanent impairment of leg
after xrays were not taken awarded $500,000 in damages. Mandel v. Doe, 888 F.2d
783 (11th Cir. 1989).
Inmate entitled to hearing on claim that
inadequate ventilation and circulation of clean air was cruel and unusual
punishment. Bedell v. Schiedler, 770 P.2d 909 (Or. 1989).
Prison officials not liable for mere negligence
in denying female prisoner access to abortion facilities. Gibson v. Matthews,
715 F.Supp. 181 (E.D. Ky. 1989).
Federal appeals court holds that inmate had no
eighth amendment right to be free of tobacco smoke exposure. Wilson v. Lynaugh,
878 F.2d 846 (5th Cir. 1989).
Prisoner was not entitled to be segregated from
other prisoners who smoked; exposure to "secondhand smoke" did not
violate Eighth Amendment. Gorman v. Moody, 710 F.Supp. 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1989).
Even if prison officials' response to
tuberculosis epidemic was inadequate, their remedying situation barred
injunctive relief. DeGidio v. Pung, 704 F.Supp. 922 (D. Minn. 1989).
Discontinuation of valium prescription for
prisoner did not establish cruel and unusual punishment. Jones v. Ehlert, 704
F.Supp. 885 (E.D. Wis. 1989).
State vicariously liable for negligence of private
physician who performed hernia operation on prisoner; doctor's status as
employee or independent contractor irrelevant. Rivers v. State, 537 N.Y.S.2d
968 (Ct. Cl. 1989).
Prescribing penicillin and aspirin for inmate
with allergy to both was not deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
McCloud v. Delaney, 677 F.Supp. 230 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Regulations providing prison exception to
psychotherapistpatient confidentiality was overboard. Matter of Rules Regarding
Inmate/Therapist Confidentiality, 540 A.2d 212 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1988).
Inmate could not recover damages for mental
anguish of exposure to tuberculosis absent proof he was TB negative prior to
incarceration. Walker v. Foti, 530 So.2d 661 (La. App. 1988).
Prisoner's survivors could assert both federal
civil rights claim and state law wrongful death claim as result of medical care
provided. Miltier v. Beorn, 696 F.Supp. 1083 (E.D. Va. 1988).
Federal court holds that exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke can be cruel and unusual punishment; inmate's suit
states claim. Avery v. Powell, 695 F.Supp. 632 (D.N.H. 1988).
Forcible diphtheria inoculation of prisoner did
not violate his rights; any privacy right outweighed by compelling interest in
preventing spread of disease. Zaire v. Dalsheim, 698 F.Supp. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)
City was responsible for medical expenses
incurred after arrest but prior to arrestee being charged or placed in
Sheriff's custody. Rockford Memorial Hosp. v. Schueler, 521 N.E.2d 251 (Ill.
App. 1988).
Prisoner had liberty interest in refusing
antipsychotic drug; prior hearing required before forcibly administering drug,
but officials immune from liability. Harper v. State, 759 P.2d 358 (Wash.
1988).
Refusal to provide inmate with valium and talwin
for chronic spinal condition was not "cruel and unusual punishment."
Wolfel v. Ferguson, 689 F.Supp. 756 (S.D. Ohio 1987).
Court refuses to hear prisoner's plea for
$600,000 for inability to have teeth cleaned by dental hygienist. Jackson v. Lane,
688 F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1988).
Initial denial of dentures, worn for cosmetic
reasons, could not be basis for civil rights lawsuit. Jackson v. Wharton, 687
F.Supp. 595 (M.D. Ga. 1988).
Inmate's transsexualism is a serious medical need
to which prison officials may not act with deliberate indifference. Whie v.
Farrier, 849 F.2d 322 (8th Cir. 1988).
Sheriff negligent for failure to transport
pregnant prisoner to hospital sooner; award of $150,000 for death of premature
baby was excessive. Calloway v. City of New Orleans, 524 So.2d 182 (La. App.
1988).
Co. liable for medical treatment hospital
provided to indigent intoxicated person in protective custody (though not
charged with crime). Susan B. Allen Mem. Hosp. v. Cty. Com'rs., 753 P.2d 1302
(Kan. App. 1988).
Delay in dental appointments was not cruel and
unusual punishment; defendants entitled to attorneys' fees for meritless claim.
Vester v. Murray, 683 F.Supp. 140 (E.D. Va. 1988).
Toilet facilities, failure to provide physical
therapy to paraplegic inmate violated the eighth amendment. La faut v. Smith,
834 F.2d 389 (4th Cir. 1987).
Federal appeals court holds unconstitutional
county policy requiring court ordered releases for prisoner elective abortions;
may have to provide funding. Monmouth Co. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834
F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987).
Inmates could sue over allegedly overcrowded and
dirty conditions contributing to contracting tuberculosis. Gillespie v.
Crawford, 833 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1987).
Inmate could bring civil rights suit over alleged
failure to provide medical treatment for hemorrhoids. Henderson v. Harris, 672
F.Supp. 1054 (N.D. Ill. 1987).
Prisoner can file federal civil rights lawsuit
over failure of prison to provide him a tobacco-smoke-free environment. Beeson
v. Johnson, 668 F.Supp. 498 (E.D. N.C. 1987).
Federal appeals court reverses order permitting
federal government to forcibly administer antipsychotic drugs to defendant
found incompetent to stand trial. United States v. Charters, 829 F.2d 479 (4th
Cir. 1987).
Confining inmate in cell without functioning
toilet and hot water for 13 days could be cruel and unusual punishment. Howard
v. Wheaton, 668 F.Supp. 1140 (N.D. Ill. 1987).
Prison could forcibly administer antipsychotic
medication on trial basis to inmate suffering from mental disease. United
States v. Bryant, 670 F.Supp. 840 (D. Minn. 1987).
Inmate sprayed with chemical agent was not
subject to cruel and unusual punishment when action necessary to restore
security. Blair-El v. Tinsman, 666 F.Supp. 1218 (S.D. Ill. 1987).
Damage award of $4,500 adequate for inmate's back
pain, but court finds sheriff's liability contingent on knowledge of back
condition. Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298 (S.D. Ill. 1987).
Duty to provide medical care to pretrial detainee
does not include duty to pay when prisoner is not indigent. Metropolitan Dade
Co. v P.L. Dodge Foundations, Inc., 509 So.2d 1170 (Fla. App. 1987).
Prison's failure to comply with state sanitary
regulations on barbering violated eighth amendment. Wilson v. State, 41 Cr. L.
2372 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987).
Plastic frame glasses properly issued inmate over
metal frames. DeFlumer v. Dalsheim, 505 N.Y.S.2d 919 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1986).
Co. must pay for inmate abortions. Monmouth Co.
Correct. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 643 F.Supp. 1217 (D.N.J. 1986).
Prison guards sued for denying medical treatment
to inmate who died with steak bone piercing his esophagus. Sosebee v. Murphy,
797 F.2d 179 (4th Cir. 1986).
Prisoner with AIDS can be denied participation in
the trailer visitaton program. Doe v Coughlin, 505 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Albany Co.
1986).
Suit asking that inmates be screened for AIDS
dismissed. Feigley v. Jeffes, 510 A.2d 385 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 1986).
Nurse's telling inmate, "it's only gas move
your ass," states section 1983 claim. Toombs v. Bell, 798 F.2d 297 (9th
Cir. 1986).
Prison physician acts under color of law. Ort v.
Pinchback, 786 F.2d 1105 (11th Cir. 1986).
Physician properly terminated for not giving good
advice over telephone. Pan v. California State Personnel Bd., 225 Cal.Rptr. 682
(App. 1986).
City not liable for pregnant inmate's
miscarriage. Vance v. Orleans Parish Crim. Sheriff's Dept., 483 So.2d 1178 (La.
App. 1986).
Transsexual prisoner not entitled to hormone
treatment. Lamb v. Maschner, 633 F.Supp. 351 (D. Kan. 1986).
Prisoner not entitled to breast-feed. Southerland
v. Thigpen, 784 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. 1986).
Class action suit for inadequate dental care
granted. Dean v. Coughlin, 107 F.R.D. 331 (S.D. N.Y. 1985).
Dissenting judge says nurse should have been
terminated for negligence that threatened security. Dept. of Corrections v.
Helton, 477 So.2d 14 (Fla. App. 1985).
Statutory right to refuse psychiatric medication.
Keyhea v. Rushen. 223 Cal.Rptr. 746 (App. 1986).
Medical care during riots challenged. Rosen v.
Commissioner of Correction for State of N.Y., 106 F.R.D. 253 (S.D. N.Y. 1985).
Claims regarding denial of proper diet and
wheelchair provisions to proceed. Ronson v. Commissioner of Correction, 491
N.Y.S.2d 209 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1985).
No liability for alleged misdiagnosis. Johnson v.
Treen, 759 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1985).
Prison doctors were independent contractors, not
state employees; no immunity for them. Kyriss v. State, 707 P.2d 5 (Mont.
1985).
Shackling inmate spread-eagle to keep him from
injuring himself resulted in liability to warden. Ferola v. Moran, 622 F.Supp.
814 (D.C. R.I. 1985).
Having to work despite medical restrictions
stated claim for constitutional violation. Toombs v. Hicks, 773 F.2d 995 (8th
Cir. 1985).
Complaint dismissed as frivolous. Johnson v.
Richards, 617 F.Supp. 113 (D.C. Okl. 1984).
Suit alleges poor treatment of pregnant women
results in high mortality rate. Jones v. Glenn Dyer et al, San Francisco
Recorder, 2/26/86.
Plaintiff states claim over doctor's informing
him that county budget would not permit surgery. Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769
(9th Cir. 1986).
Inmates with AIDS can be segregated. Cordero v.
Coughlin, 607 F.Supp. 9 (D.C. N.Y. 1984).
Prison officials are properly handling the
disease of AIDS in prison. LaRocca v. Dalsheim, 467 N.Y.S.2d 302 (App. 1983).
Liability results for improper medical treatment
of arrestee beaten by police. Rock v. McCoy, 663 F.2d 394 (10th Cir. 1985).
Claims official forced him to work beyond his
physical capacity. Johnson v. Clinton, 763 F.2d 326 (8th Cir. 1985).
Inmate claims delay in knee surgery grounds for
liability; three dollar fee for medical visit unsuccessfully challenged.
Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Com'rs., 766 F.2d 404 (9th Cir. 1985).
Practice of admitting unconscious intoxicated
detainees resulted in six-figure judgment against county for death. Garcia v.
Salt Lake Co., 768 F.2d 303 (10th Cir. 1985).
Officials not required to special order wide
shoes. Williams v. Duckworth, 598 F.Supp. 9 (N.D. Ind. 1983).
Sheriff and physician sued for allegedly causing
inmate to be legally blind. Weaver v. Jarvis, 611 F.Supp. 40 (N.D. Ga. 1985).
Over $2 million awarded for failure to provide
medical care to person in custody with sickle cell anemia. Wright v. City of
Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court, Los Ang. Daily Jour., 4/2/85.
Supervisors not immune for failure to ensure that
proper medication is given. Bandfield v. Wood, 364 N. W. 2d 280 (Mich. 1985).
Defendants could be liable for not re-examining
inmate with past eye problems. Aldridge v. Montgomery, 753 F.2d 970 (11th Cir.
1985).
Private doctor treating inmates not a state actor
for Section 1983 liability as are prison doctors. Calvert v. Sharp, 748 F.2d
861 (4th Cir. 1984).
Low level doses of female hormones ordered for
transsexual inmate. Supre v. Ricketts, 596 F.Supp. 1532 (D. Colo. 1984).
Forced injection of antipsychotic drug
challenged. Bee v. Greaves, 744 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. 1984).
Prison officials may impose discipline for
inmate's refusal to answer psychologist's questions; inmate not required to
answer questions about crime while appeal is pending. Taylor v. Best, 746 F.2d
220 (4th Cir 1984).
U.S. government liable for prisoner's death in
hospital. Jackson v. United States, 750 F.2d 55 (8th Cir. 1984).
Unconstitutional to use jails for confining
persons awaiting commitment proceedings. Lynch v. Baxley, 744 F.2d 1452 (11th
Cir. 1984).
Inmate may be forced to take drugs for mental
problems. Gilliam v. Martin, 589 F.Supp. 680 (W.D. Oka. 1984).
Co. liable for arrestee's drug overdose in drunk
tank. Shepherd v. Dickson Co. Sheriff's Dept., U.S. District Court, (Charlotte,
Tenn. 1984).
Sheriff liable for inmate not getting epileptic
medication; sheriff liable for not forwarding records. Harris Co., Tex. v.
Jenkins, 678 S.W.2d 639 (Tex. App. 1984).
Punitive purposes need not be alleged to recover
for delayed medical treatment. Whisenant v. Yaum, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984).
No liability for failure to dispense medication.
Marchant v. City of Little Rock, Ark., 741 F.2d 201 (8th Cir. 1984).
Immunity granted to state and state officials for
alleged inadequate medical treatment to paraplegic. Lee v. McManus, 589 F.Supp.
633 (D. Kan. 1984).
Three patrolmen could be individually liable for
$10 million for denying medical treatment to man who became quadriplegic while
in custody. Harley v. Carman, 585 F.Supp. 1353 (N.D. Ohio 1984).
Inmate cannot challenge doctor's opinion. Riddick
v. Bass, 585 F.Supp. 881 (E.D. Va. 1984).
State courts conflict on a prisoner's right to
starve to death. In re Caulk, New Hampshire Supreme Court, No. 84-246, 7/23/84.
35 CrL 2352 8/22/84.
Pregnant inmate blames miscarriage on officials.
Archer v. Dutcher, 733 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1984).
Sheriff could be liable for allegedly denying
dental care to inmate. Fields v. Gander, 732 F.2d 1313 (8th Cir. 1984).
Inmate not entitled to complete examination after
fall. Taylor v. Treen, 446 So.2d 906 (La. App. 1984).
Too late to name does as defendants in wrongful
death suit against sheriff. Bruce v. Smith, 581 F.Supp. 902 (W.D. Va. 1984).
Inmate's wheelchair properly seized by officials.
Lowrence v. Scully, 575 F.Supp. 39 (S.D. N.Y. 1983).
By contrast, a California court allows naming
does as defendants beyond statute of limitations period. Olden v. Hatchell, 201
Cal.Rptr. 715 (Cal.App. 1984).
Existence of prior lawsuits not grounds to put
director on notice of alleged inadequacies. Estate of Eklund v. Hardiman, 580
F.Supp. 410 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
Prison doctor cancels inmate's prescription for
habit- forming drug. Burns v. Head Jailor of LaSalle Co. Jail, 576 F.Supp. 618
(N.D. Ill. 1984).
New York prison officials are properly handling
the disease of AIDS in prison. LaRocca v. Dalsheim, 467 N.Y.S.2d 302 (App.
1983).
Officials provided reasonable medical attention
to inmate's injury during recreation. Ellison v. Scheipe, 570 F Supp. 1361
(E.D. Pa. 1983).
Inmate's suit alleging he was disciplined for
refusing medical operation to proceed to trial. Greer v. DeRobertis, 568
F.Supp. 1370 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
Jail physician and officials may be liable for
forcibly injecting prescribed drug into allegedly schizophrenic plaintiff, who
refused treatment for alleged religious reasons; city dismissed from suit since
it was not given timely notice. Osgood v. Dist. of Col., 567 F.Supp. 1026
(D.D.C. 1983).
Inmate entitled to special diet for his Jewish
religious beliefs. Prison officials unintentionally violated Bureau of prison regulations.
Prushinowski v. Hambrick, 570 F.Supp. 863 (E.D. N.C. 1983).
Placing inmates found "unfit to stand
trial" in most secure mental health facility is constitutional violation.
Johnson v. Breilje, 701 F.2d 1201 (7th Cir. 1983).
Judgment against officials and United States for
negligent medical care of inmate. Venus v. Goodman, 556 F.Supp. 514 (W.D. Wis.
1983).
Inmate's claim of inadequate medical treatment
was frivolous. Excellent case discussion on court procedures and legal theories
on frivolous complaints. Johnson v. Baskerville, 568 F.Supp. 853 (E.D. Va.
1983).
$250,000 awarded as a result of prison officials'
improper response to inmate's "cardiac arrest". Bass v. Roe, U.S.
Dist. Ct., #78 C 3965 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
Possible liability for inadequate medical care of
inmate known to have sickle cell anemia. Barksdale v. King, 699 F.2d 744 (5th
Cir. 1983).
No liability to officials for failing to give
pretrial detainee prescribed medicine. Marchant v. City of Little Rock, Ark.,
557 F.Supp. 475 (E.D. Ark. 1983).
Co. possibly liable for alcoholic prisoner's
death. Solberg v. Co. of Yellowstone, 659 P.2d 290 (Mont. 1983).
Inmate's claim that he was denied adequate
medical attention for a short time allowed to proceed. Byrd v. Wilson, 701 F.2d
592 (6th Cir. 1983).
Judgment entered against prison doctor for
failure to answer complaint alleging deliberate indifference of medical
treatment. Brinton v. Gaffney, 554 F.Supp. 388 (E.D. Pa. 1983).
If prisoner's heart attack did not result from
prison work the survivors were not entitled to worker's compensation, but could
sue for negligent medical care. Heumphreus v. State, 334 N.W.2d 757 (Ia. 1983).
Sheriff may be liable for inmate's death caused
by improper medical treatment of alcoholic placed in cell. Morrison v.
Washington Co., Ala., 700 F.2d 678 (11th Cir. 1983); reversing 521 F.Supp. 947
(S.D. Ala. 1981).
Co. medical personnel may be liable for
juvenile's death while in county jail. Ochoa v. Sup. Ct. of Santa Clara Co.,
191 Cal.Rptr. 907 (App. 1983).
Sheriff does not have to provide methadone
treatment to pretrial detainee. Fredericks v. Huggins, 711 F.2d 31 (4th Cir.
1983).
No liability to sheriff for inmate death from
asthmatic attack. Elsey v. Sheriff of E. Baton Rouge, 435 So.2d 1104 (La. App.
1983).
Correctional officials may be liable for forcible
injection of drugs into inmate who refused medical treatment for religious
reasons. Osgood v. District of Columbia, 567 F.Supp. 1026 (D.D.C. 1983).
Medical treatment of inmate injured during
recreational period was proper. Ellison v. Scheipe, 570 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D. pa.
1983).
Court discusses state established procedures to
combat AIDS at state prison facilities. LaRocca v Dalsheim, 467 N.Y.S.2d 302
(App. 1983).
Man detained in jail for breach of peace claims
deputy sheriff violated his rights by refusing to permit telephone use and by
denying him medical attention. Hearn v. Hudson, 549 F.Supp. 949 (W.D. Va.
1982).
Former inmate claims inadequate medical treatment
and assault against various hospital and prison officials; New York Federal
Court allows suit against correctional officials to proceed. Tomarkin v. Ward,
534 F.Supp. 1224 (S.D. N.Y. 1982).
West Virginia Supreme Court refuses to transfer
inmates to state hospital who claimed they suffered from mental illness and
addiction. Crews v. Bordenkirchner, 283 S.E.2d 925 (W. Va. 1981).
New York court rejects diabetic prisoner's claim
of inadequate medical care. Carter v. Parsons, 526 F.Supp. 297 (N.D. N.Y.
1981).
District of Columbia court upholds transfer of
inmate from mental hospital to prison; rules that inmate had not met burden of
refuting the decision. In re Hurt, 437 A.2d 590 (D.D.C. 1981).
New York District Court dismisses suit by inmate
against Department of Corrections claiming denial of medical treatment. Martin
v. New York City Department of Corrections, 522 F.Supp. 169 (S.D. N.Y. 1981).
New York court rules that inmate's allegation of
two-year delay in furnishing him with leg brace stated a valid claim. Young v.
Harris, 509 F.Supp. 1111 (S.D. N.Y. 1981).
Prisoner wins rehearing on claim of medical
neglect. Slay v. State of Alabama, 636 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir. 1981).
Involuntary transfer of an inmate to a mental
facility can not be done without due process hearing. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S.
480, 100 S.Ct. 1254 (1980).
Fifth circuit rules in favor of mentally
disturbed inmate in civil rights suit. Thompson v. Capps, 626 F.2d 389 (5th
Cir. 1980).
District of Columbia court reaffirming order
requiring jail to transfer mentally ill residents. Campbell v. McGruder, 416
F.Supp. 100 (D.D.C. 1980).
Maryland correctional facility agrees to provide
deaf inmates with sign language interpreters. Pyles v. Kamka, 491 F.Supp. 204
(D. Md. 1980).
Louisiana court denies increase of $2,500 award
to paralyzed inmate who received improper medical care while confined. Brown v.
State, 392 So.2d 113 (la. App. 1980).
Pennsylvania court holds that negligence and
malpractice are not sufficient for civil rights claim; inmate must prove
deliberate indifference. Campbell v. Sacred Heart hospital, 496 F.Supp. 692
(E.D. Pa. 1980).
Evidence of concern by treating physician held
sufficient to defeat claim of deliberate indifference, even where ordered
treatment never took place. Hamilton v. Gaffney, 624 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1980).
$65,603.90 award to estate of deceased jail
inmate reversed on procedural grounds; new trial ordered. Lang v. City of Des
Moines, 294 N.W.2d 557 (Iowa 1980).
New Jersey appellate court permits late filing of
notice to county of claim for improper medical care of prisoner. Dyer v.
Newark, 416 A.2d 429 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1980).
Prisoner's claim of insufficient medical care
cognizable if deliberate indifference can be shown. Broughton v. Cutter
Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1980).
Missouri prisoners obtain relief from alleged
sub-par medical treatment and hospital conditions. Burks v. Teasdale, 492
F.Supp. 650 (W.D. Mo. 1980).
Settlement of incompetent inmate's civil rights
claim disallowed by Virginia Federal District Judge; $6,000 not enough for
inmate's self- mutilation claim. Crawford v. Loving, 84 F.R.D. 80 (E.D. Va.
1979).
Third Circuit upholds lower court ruling that
contact visitation and methadone maintenance program need not be instituted at
Allegheny Co. Jail; remains on psychiatric care issue. Inmates of Allegheny Co.
Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754 (3rd Cir. 1979).
Cancellation of canteen privileges for diabetic
inmate found permissible. Jefferson v. Douglas, 493 F.Supp. 13 (W.D. Okla.
1979).
Court finds prisoner to have made out cause of
action against prison physician who prescribed medication although warned of
possible allergic reaction. Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948 (4th Cir. 1979).
Removing cyst without anesthesia, even if
intentional, is not cognizable claim under Civil Rights Act. Jordan v.
Robinson, 464 F.Supp. 223 (W.D. Pa. 1979).
Maryland District court finds no violation of
prisoner volunteers' constitutional rights during medical research tests
conducted at prisons. Baily v. Lally, 481 F.Supp. 203 (D. Md. 1979).
Failure to give TB medicine to Arkansas inmate
who is later found not to have TB is not cognizable under Civil Rights Act.
Butler v. Best, 478 F.Supp. 377 (E.D. Ark. 1979).
Court holds that county jail inmates civil rights
actions against state judge failed to state a claim under civil rights statute.
Phillips v. Collins, 461 F.Supp. 317 (N.D. Ill. 1978).
Inmate entitled to adequate medical care.
Deliberate indifference to inmate's serious illness or injury is cruel and
unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 1331, 97 S.Ct. 284 (1976).
» For earlier case discussions see: Haywood v.
Ball, 586 F.2d 996 (4th Cir. 1978); Scittarellie v. Manson, 447 F.Supp. 279 (D.
Conn. 1978); Parrilla v. Cuyler, 447 F.Supp. 363 (E.D. Pa. 1978); Shea v. City
of Spokane, 578 P.2d 42 (Wash. 1978); McCormick v. City of Wildwood, 439 F.Supp.
769 (D.N.J. 1977); McCracken v. Jones, 562 F.2d 22 (10th Cir. 1977); Westlake
v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857 (6th Cir. 1976); Reeves v. City of Jackson, Mississippi,
532 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1976); Finney v. Hutto, 410 F.Supp. 251 (E.D. Ark.
1976); Rodriguez v. Jiminez, 409 F.Supp. 582 (D. Puerto Rico 1976); Tate v.
Kassulke, 409 F.Supp. 651 (W.D. Ky. 1976); Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d 318
(4th Cir. 1975); Shannon v. Lester, 519 F.2d 76 (6th Cir. 1975); Alberti v.
Sheriff of Harris county, Texas, 406 F.Supp. 649 (S.D. Texas 1975); Goode v.
Hartman, 388 F.Supp. 541 (E.D. Va. 1975); Dewell v. Lawson, 489 F.2d 877 (10th
Cir. 1974); Cudnik v. Dreiger, 392 F.Supp. 305 (N.D. Ohio 1974); Ross v.
Bounds, 373 F.Supp. 450 (E.D. N.C. 1974); Page v. Sharpe, 487 F.2d 567 (1st Cir.
1973); Collins v. Shoonfield, 344 F.Supp. 257 (D. Md. 1972); Bowring v. Godwin,
551 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1977); Matter of Burchett, 564 P.2d 87 (Ariz. App. 1977);
Cochran v. Sielaff, 405 F.Supp. 1126 (S.D. Ill. 1976); Kahane v. Carlson, 527
F.2d 492 (2nd Cir. 1975); Lingo v. Boone, 402 F.Supp. 768 (N.D. Calif. 1975);
United States v. Huss, 394 F.Supp. 752 (S.D. N.Y. 1975); Ross v. Blackledge,
477 F.2d 616 (4th Cir. 1973); Elam v. Henderson, 472 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1973);
Startz v. Cullen, 468 F.2d 560 (2nd Cir 1972); Kauffman v Johnston, 454 F.2d
267 (3rd Cir. 1972).
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu