AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Medical Care: Eye & Vision Related
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability for
Inadequate Prisoner Medical Care, 2007 (9) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal
Article: Forced Feeding or Medication
of Prisoners, 2007 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Legal
Issues Pertaining to Inmate Funds, 2008 (4) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
(includes section on recovery of medical costs).
Monthly Law Journal
Article: Transsexual Prisoners:
Medical Care Issues, 2009 (8) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil
Liability for Inadequate Prisoner Dental Care, 2009 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Mental
Health Care of Prisoners, 2009 (11)
AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Shackling
of Pregnant Prisoners, 2009 (12)
AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Avoiding
Liability for Antibiotic Resistant Infections in Prisoners, 2011 (3) AELE Mo. L.
J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil
Liability for Inadequate Prisoner Medical Care: Eye and Vision Related,
2014 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
When a prisoner’s incarceration began, he was already blind in his left eye. He started to complain about pain and vision abnormalities in his right eye. An optometrist referred him to a university eye clinic. After a transfer to another prison. He made health services requests, indicating that his right eye was deteriorating. He was then transported to the university eye clinic, where he was diagnosed with a retinal detachment that required emergency surgery. After the surgery, he continued to experience vision problems and was diagnosed with a macular tear that required surgery. That surgery resulted in him being blind for several weeks. He allegedly was not assisted by prison staff in using the restroom or showering and had to get his own meals. He continued to experience serious problems with his right eye and filed several complaints. He was then transferred again. His follow-up appointment with the eye clinic was canceled and he was unable to see a doctor for several weeks. The doctor removed loose stitches that had been causing his pain. The prisoner never recovered his right eye vision and is now legally blind. The trial court ruled that based on his adequate pleadings he was competent to litigate his federal civil rights Eighth Amendment case alone without appointed counsel during the advanced pre-trial stages of the litigation. A federal appeals court reversed, ruling that the trial court failed to give his motion for appointed counsel “particularized consideration,” The trial court failed to address the difficulty presented by the inmate’s claims, which involved proving a culpable state of mind of several medical professionals, security personnel, and prison policymakers. The appeals court ordered the trial court to recruit counsel to assist the prisoner in pursuing his claim for inadequate medical care. Pennewell v. Parish, #18-3029, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 13420 (7th Cir.).
An inmate claimed that prison
officials were deliberately indifferent in refusing him cataract surgery to
restore his vision. A federal appeals court ruled that blindness in one eye
caused by the cataract was a serious medical condition. It further held that
the blanket denial of the surgery, based solely on a policy that "one eye
is good enough for prison inmates," if true, could be found to be
deliberate indifference by a jury. The record appeared to indicate that prison
officials ignored the recommendations of treating medical specialists, instead
relying on the opinions of non-specialist and non-treating medical personnel
who rendered their decisions based on the administrative policy. Colwell v.
Bannister, #12-15844, 763 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014).
A prisoner submitted a
number of requests for healthcare for his bloodshot left eye, but was allegedly
released on parole without receiving treatment. Upon release, he underwent
laser surgery for glaucoma in his right eye, but continued to have problems
with his left eye. When he was reincarcerated, he made several more attempts to
receive treatment, and finally underwent surgery to remove part of his left
eye's ciliary body three years later. In his lawsuit claiming deliberate
indifference to his glaucoma condition, the trial court denied repeated
requests for an appointed lawyer, finding that his claims were not meritorious
or overly complex. A federal appeals court found that this denial of appointed
counsel was an abuse of discretion and that this abuse impacted on the prisoner's
ability to develop and litigate his claim. DeWitt v. Corizon, Inc., #13-2930,
2014 U.S. App. Lexis 14236 (7th Cir.).
A jail detainee claimed that he became partially
blind because of a delay in treatment for his high blood pressure. A doctor and
a nurse were entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that they failed to
carry out a medical screening of the plaintiff when he was booked into the
jail, as there was no clearly established right to a general medical screening
upon admission to a detention center. The county was also entitled to summary
judgment on the medical screening claim when he did not exhibit obvious signs
of a serious medical condition. The expert witness testimony established, at
most, negligent medical malpractice in failing to prescribe medication after
several high blood pressure readings, but that was insufficient for a
constitutional claim. Fourte v. Faulkner County, Arkansas, #13-2241, 2014
U.S. App. Lexis 5451 (8th Cir.).
While the trial court held that the plaintiff
prisoner had voluntarily, and with informed consent, signed a form refusing to
have a consultation with a retinal specialist, the appeals court reversed
summary judgment for the defendants. It ruled that there were genuine issues of
material fact as to the validity as well as the scope of the refusal form.
Further proceedings were ordered as to whether any of the individual defendants
acted with deliberate indifference on failing to provide him with medical
treatment for his retinopathy. Kuhne v. FL Dept. of Corrections, #12-13387,
2014 U.S. App. Lexis 2460, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1013 (11th Cir.).
A prisoner filed a lawsuit against a health care
service and five medical professionals claiming that they were deliberately
indifferent to his chronic serious medical conditions of diabetes and Hepatitis
C, and that this had caused the need for partial amputation of his feet and
visual impairment. He argued that this deliberate indifference was ongoing,
subjecting him to a risk of coma, death, or further amputations. While he had
filed three previous lawsuits dismissed as frivolous, he was not precluded from
proceeding as a pauper on the current lawsuit under the "three
strikes" rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act because his claims of an
ongoing risk of additional harm fell within the "imminent danger"
exception to that rule. Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc. #11-1959, 2013
U.S. App. Lexis 17028, 2013 Fed App. 234P (6th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that the failure to provide
him with prescription eye drops for his glaucoma violated his Eighth Amendment
rights as well as constituting negligence under state law. He failed to show
that the delays in supplying him with the eye drops was due to deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need, and the trial court did not err in
declining to retain jurisdiction over the state law negligence claim. Byrd v.
Shannon, #11-1744, 709 F.3d 211 (3rd Cir. 2013).
When a prisoner was examined by a prison doctor
and a nurse, complaining of a swollen eye and a headache, they recommended,
respectively, a warm compress and the taking of Tylenol. After his release, the
prisoner discovered that the swollen eye was because of a rare form of bone
cancer. The misdiagnosis by the medical personnel could not support a federal
civil rights claim. The doctor only had one brief contact with the prisoner,
and there nurse did refer him to an optometrist. "(N)either negligent
medical care, nor the delay in providing medical care, can rise to the level of
a constitutional violation absent specific allegations of sufficiently harmful
acts or omissions reflecting deliberate indifference." Reilly v.
Vadlamudi, #11-1252, 680 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2012).
A death row prisoner claimed that the prison's
medical director was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need for
eye surgery. Overturning summary judgment for the defendant doctor, a federal
appeals court held that there were genuine issues of material fact as to
whether he ignored the prisoner's condition of pterygia, a thin film that
covers the eye. While that condition is often confined to the white part of the
eye, in this case it extended over the corneas, making his uncorrected vision
20/80 as a result, and causing persistent itching and irritation. There was a record
showing that a number of doctors recommended surgery, but that their advice was
not followed, and the prisoner's eyesight then further deteriorated. Ortiz v.
Webster, #10-2012, 655 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2011).
When he was attacked by another prisoner, a
pretrial detainee suffered painful injuries to his head and eyes. Despite
requesting medical attention, he allegedly received none for five days, and
instead was "locked down" for 72 hours following the attack, despite
the fact that officers allegedly knew of his obvious injuries, as evidenced by
blood, dizziness and vomiting and his complaints of extreme pain. Overturning
the dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to state a claim, the appeals court
ruled that "even a few days' delay in addressing a severely painful but
readily treatable condition suffices to state a claim of deliberate
indifference." Smith v. Knox County Jail, #10-1113, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis
1238 (7th Cir. 2012).
A prisoner failed to show that medical personnel
acted with deliberate indifference in failing to diagnose and treat his Fuchs'
dystrophy, a corneal disease, since the record showed that they repeatedly
examined him (no less than seven times in a nine month period), and recommended
piggyback lenses and artificial tears in response to his reports of eye pain.
Zuege v. Knoch, #10-3373, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 10221 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A jury rejected a prisoner's claim that a jail
sergeant and a doctor were deliberately indifferent and ignored his need for
Crohn's disease treatment and replacement eyeglasses. Upholding this result,
the appeals court rejected arguments that the trial court erred in failing to
provide him with an appointed lawyer for his lawsuit, since the prisoner was
literate and capable of asserting his own claims. The trial judge also did not
err in allowing the defense to use evidence of the plaintiff's criminal
convictions for the limited purpose of challenging the truthfulness of his
testimony. Romanelli v. Suliene, #08-1762, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17016 (7th
Cir.).
A detainee's temporary segregation in a medical
unit was intended as part of the treatment of his eye infection, and to prevent
the spreading of the infection, rather than as punishment. There was no
evidence of any link between the prisoner filing grievances about the purported
delay in treatment for his eye infection and any alleged adverse action taken
against him by correctional employees, such as use of abusive language,
threats, or physical abuse. Bendy v. Ocean County Jail, #07-1421, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 16259 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner who suffered from a blood clot in his
left eye failed to assert a viable disability discrimination claim since the
record showed that he was provided with meaningful access to prison programs
and facilities. The prisoner also failed to show that the manager of a prison
housing unit acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Indeed, there was no admissible evidence even showing that the defendant was
aware of his blood clot. Mason v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.,
#.07-2814, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 6068 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner's allegation that correctional
officials knowingly refused to provide treatment or to investigate his request
for treatment, specifically ophthalmic evaluation and cataract surgery, failed
to establish a claim for disability discrimination. His argument that an
allegedly resulting disability was the loss of vision in his right eye did not
show that the defendants denied him care on the basis of a disability. The
prisoner also failed to show that the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs, or that they acted merely in order
to save the cost of treatment, as opposed to acting on a medical finding
concerning the stability of his eye condition. Stevenson v. Pramstaller,
#07-cv-14040, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25495 (E.D. Mich.).
Prisoner, in making a "bare allegation"
that a medical services company's custom or policy resulted in progressive
detachment of his retina, degeneration, and irreparable damage to his vision,
failed to properly establish a federal civil rights claim against the company.
There was also no showing that a defendant correctional official had been aware
that the prisoner had a serious medical need. The prisoner had a right,
however, to file an amended complaint naming other defendants, and could do so
without the court's permission so long as the complaint had not yet been
answered. Broyles v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., #08-1638, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 5494 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
Any delay in treatment of a sty under a
prisoner's left eye did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. There was no evidence that medical personnel knew that
the inmate's condition posed a substantial risk to his health. The prisoner
claimed that the delay caused the sty to grow, blurring his vision, and
requiring multiple surgeries. Slater v. Greenwood, No. 08-3042, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 2223 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
The failure on a non-medical staff member to take
action concerning a prisoner's pre-existing eye condition (a pinhole in the
retina of his left eye) did not amount to deliberate indifference but the
plaintiff prisoner was entitled to carry out further discovery concerning
whether the head of the prison medical unit had knowledge of his complaints but
failed to take necessary action. Burks v. Raemish, No. 07-3041, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 2640 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Prisoner's civil rights claims concerning an
alleged delay in surgery for a cut close to his eye were time barred under a
two-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations, and a state law medical
negligence claim also could not be pursued because the prisoner failed to
comply with a requirement that he file a medical certificate of merit
concerning that claim. Lopez v. Brady, Civil No. 4:CV-07-1126, 2008 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 43797 (M.D. Pa.).
A warden and prison administrator could not be
held liable for the alleged improper denial of recommended eye surgery, because
they relied on the director of a prison medical clinic to make that
determination. The appeals court ruled, however, that summary judgment for the
medical director was improper since many doctors had recommended surgery for
the visually significant growths that the prisoner had on his eyes, and the
medical records did not support the director's argument that he denied surgery
because the condition did not interfere with the prisoner's vision. Further
proceedings were therefore ordered on the claim against the director. Ortiz v.
Bezy, No. 07-3807, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12885 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
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.).
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.).
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]
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]
A prisoner who suffered a loss of sight in
one eye knew of the delay in his medical treatment when three months intervened
between hospital visits for his eye injury after a fistfight. Accordingly, the
statute of limitations began to run after the second hospital visit. While the
prisoner sued the county sheriff within the one-year statute of limitations
period, he failed to add a doctor as a defendant until more than a year had
passed, so that his claim against the doctor and his insurer was barred.
McCafferty v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, No. 04-CA-205, 880 So.2d 84
(La. App. 5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Jail nurse who took incoming prisoner's medical
history was not liable for any damage allegedly resulting from 51-day delay in
eye examination and resumption of medication which worsened his glaucoma when
she had no further contact with him after intake process. Prisoner also failed
to show that sheriff had any knowledge about his condition or was personally
involved, in anyway, in the 51-day delay in scheduling his eye examination.
Richardson v. Nassau County, 277 F. Supp. 2d 106 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Alleged action of prison nurse of applying the
wrong eye drops to the inmate's eyes was not "deliberate
indifference" to prisoner's serious medical needs, but at most, merely
negligent or unprofessional conduct in failing to check the medication before
administering it. Long v. Lafko, 254 F. Supp. 2d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue federal civil rights
claim against optometrist for failing to immediately treat a retinal tear
following an injury to his eye when he could not show that the doctor was
subjectively aware of his serious medical needs. Despite the seriousness of the
subsequent permanently blurred vision and light sensitivity that the prisoner
experienced, the doctor did not act with deliberate indifference since he saw
no sign of retinal damage during his examination. Jones v. Van Fleit, #01-4303,
49 Fed. Appx. 626 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner was properly awarded $174,178 in damages
for asserted delays in his treatment for glaucoma and skin cancer. Evidence
showed that, despite his repeated grievances, treatment was delayed and
required surgical removal of a lesion rather than cryosurgery and increased the
future risk of skin cancer. Delay in treating glaucoma resulted in corneal
swelling and might result in the loss of his eye. Caldwell v. District of
Columbia, 201 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2001). [N/R]
277:6 Sheriff and
deputies were not liable for arrestee's bizarre action of blinding himself by
plucking out his eyes; while prisoner's behavior was "increasingly
erratic," there was nothing which informed the defendants that he had an
intent to harm himself; defendants attempted to care for prisoner and did not
act with deliberate indifference. Sibley v. LeMaire, #98-30301, 184 F.3d 481
(5th Cir. 1999).
267:39 Prison doctors' failure to diagnose tumor
which later caused prisoner to go blind was insufficient to assert a claim for
deliberate indifference to serious medical condition. Johnson v. Quinones, 145
F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 1998).
253:7 Prison officials did not violate prisoner's
rights by delay in supplying him with sunglasses for light sensitivity when
there was medical testimony that this delay did not cause any further damage to
prisoner's eye. Crowley v. Hedgepeth, 109 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 1997).
261:137 Prisoner's federal lawsuit about alleged
delay in cataract surgery on his eye dismissed when he could not show that he
pursued all administrative appeals available to him in the California
correctional system. Alexandroai v. Calif. Dept. of Corrections, 985 F.Supp.
968 (S.D. Cal. 1997).
245:69 Trial judge improperly dismissed
prisoner's lawsuit against officers for confiscating his prescribed
eye-glasses, needed to correct severe double vision and loss of depth
perception resulting from injury; prisoner had a "serious medical
need" for the glasses, and there was insufficient evidence to dismiss his
assertion that officers were subjectively aware of his medical condition. Koehl
v. Dalsheim, 85 F.3d 86 (2nd Cir. 1996).
Detainee who lost an eye receives $273,000
settlement in suit alleging unreasonable use of aerosol spray and inadequate
medical care while in custody. Goodman v. Montgomery Co., U.S. Dist. M.D. Ala.,
No. CV-92-H-1170-N (May 29, 1993), reported in 37 ATLA L. Rep. 56 (March 1994).
Inmate's claim that he was not provided with
medically prescribed eyeglasses stated a claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. Ennis v. Dasovick, 506 N.W.2d 386 (N.D. 1993).
Prison officials' refusal to provide eyeglasses
to prisoner with 20/400 eyesight because he did not have funds to pay for the
glasses constituted deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Benter
v. Peck, 825 F.Supp. 1411 (S.D. Iowa 1993).
Prison doctors did not violate inmate's
constitutional rights by prescribing a drug for tuberculosis prevention without
informing him of a possible negative impact on his eyesight; prison health care
administrator was also not liable. McAleese v. Owens, 770 F.Supp. 225 (M.D. Pa.
1991).
Inmate blinded in one eye by glaucoma awarded
$225,000 for jail medical director's failure to provide him prescription eye
drops. Smith v. Franklin, U.S. Dist. Ct., Atlanta, Gal., reported in the
Atlanta Journal, Feb. 2, 1991.
Plastic frame glasses properly issued inmate over
metal frames. DeFlumer v. Dalsheim, 505 N.Y.S.2d 919 (A.D. 2 Dept. 1986).
Sheriff and physician sued for allegedly causing
inmate to be legally blind. Weaver v. Jarvis, 611 F.Supp. 40 (N.D. Ga. 1985).
Defendants could be liable for not re-examining
inmate with past eye problems. Aldridge v. Montgomery, 753 F.2d 970 (11th Cir.
1985).