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).
     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 b