29. Medical care.

U.S. Appeals Court FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE PRIVATE PROVIDER ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act ^^ Burke v.North Dakota Corrections and Rehabilit., 294 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2002). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action alleging that a corrections department and its medical services contractor denied him treatment for his hepatitis C. The district court dismissed the case. The appeals court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. The appeals court held that the inmate's allegation that the correctional facility's medical director prevented him from being seen by doctors because of the inmate's prior lawsuit against the director, alleged more than a disagreement over the proper course of treatment, and the case should not have been dismissed. (North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Medcenter One)

U.S. District Court DELAY IN CARE

Caldwell v. District of Columbia, 201 F.Supp.2d 27 (D.D.C. 2001). An inmate filed a [section] 1983 action against the District of Columbia and several employees of its corrections department, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement and denial of medical care. A jury entered a verdict in favor of the inmate, on all claims, and awarded $174,178. The appeals court granted judgment for the defendants as a matter of law, in part, denied judgment for the defendants in part, and did not reduce the damage award. The court found that statements by the inmate's attorney during his closing argument, suggesting specific dollar amounts to be considered by the jury, did not warrant a new trial. The appeals court held that findings that conditions were unconstitutional were supported by evidence, as were findings that officials were deliberately indifferent to the inmate's serious medical needs. The appeals court held that the Prison Litigation Reform At (PLRA) does not require a prisoner to allege or prove serious, permanent physical injury in order to bring an action for violation of his constitutional rights. The appeals court held that the prisoner sufficiently alleged a "physical injury" for the purposes of PLRA, with allegations that excessive heat in his cell made him dizzy, dehydrated, and disoriented, gave him a severe rash, and that smoke from rolled toilet paper "wicks" and frequent use of mace gave him bronchial irritation and a runny nose. The inmate also alleged that the small bunk aggravated his arthritis. The appeals court held that the inmate's exposure to feces in his cell, foul water, filth, excessive heat, smoke, and mace, and the lack of outdoor exercise, resulted in a substantial risk of serious harm. The appeals court upheld the inmate's deliberate indifference claim, noting that it was supported by evidence that treatment for the inmate's glaucoma and skin cancer was delayed for substantial periods. (Maximum Security Facility, Lorton Correctional Complex, District of Columbia)

U.S. District Court FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Carlyle v. Aubrey, 189 F.Supp.2d 660 (W.D.Ky. 2001). A former prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a county jail alleging Eighth Amendment violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the prisoner's medical needs were not treated with deliberate indifference, noting that medication was administered twice during the prisoner's one-day stay at the jail, he was intoxicated when arrested, and he admitted that his seizures caused memory loss. The court held that the prisoner was not subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, even though water service in his cell was broken, he was forced to sleep on the floor, and he was fed only a bologna sandwich. The prisoner had admitted that he was offered drinking water on at least two occasions and that officers brought in water to flush the toilet. The court noted that although forcing a prisoner to sleep on the floor for extended periods may amount to an Eighth Amendment violation, the temporary inconvenience of one night spent on the floor does not. (Jefferson County Jail, Kentucky)

U.S. Appeals Court DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE

Halpin v. Simmons, 33 Fed.Appx. 961 (10th Cir. 2002). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action and the district court dismissed the claim. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part. The appeals court held that a violation of the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC) was not a violation of federal law and therefore could not be subject to a [section] 1983 action. The appeals court found that the prisoner stated an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to his medical condition when he alleged that authorities ignored his repeated requests for treatment of a severe heart condition and for gastric pain. According to the prisoner, officials also refused to provide heart medication and to honor a prohibition on stair climbing that had been ordered by cardiologists. (Florida Department of Corrections, Kansas Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE

Lawson v. Dallas County, 286 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2002). A paraplegic inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against a county, sheriff and a jail's chief medical officer, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. After a bench trial the district court entered judgment in favor of the inmate, awarding $250,000. The appeals court affirmed, finding that evidence supported the finding that jail officials violated the inmate's right to adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment. The court held that the finding that individual members of the jail's medical staff, rather than the staff as a whole, acted with deliberate indifference was supported by evidence that all of the nurses who primarily treated the inmate had actual knowledge of the risk posed by the development and worsening of the inmate's ulcers. The court found that these nurses responded by disobeying doctor's orders, not providing the inmate with adequate mobility equipment, not personally assisting him in turning himself, bathing or moving, not providing necessary dressing changes, and not seeking an alternative placement for the inmate. (Lew Sterrett Justice Center, Dallas County, Texas)

U.S. Appeals Court DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE MEDICATION

Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492 (3rd Cir. 2002). A prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, a physician and a corporate medical care provider, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the inmate appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded, finding that the district court had abused its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel for the inmate. The court noted that numerous technical rulings against the inmate clearly indicated that the inmate was experiencing difficulty in proving the elements of his legal claim, and that his case was compromised because he lacked legal representation. According to the court, the inmate would have especially benefited from expert testimony because the inmate lacked the medical records that might otherwise have been used to demonstrate his alleged injury to a jury. The court held that the mere loss of the inmate's medical records by the officials, physician and medical provider did not rise to the requisite level of deliberate indifference. The inmate alleged that officials and providers refused to provide him with antiviral medications, x-rays, laboratory and blood work, mad prescription medication refills--all of which they had determined were necessary for his treatment before his medical records were lost. (Riverfront State Prison, New Jersey)

U.S. District Court DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE SUICIDE

Pelletier v. Magnuson, 201 F.Supp.2d 148 (D3.Me. 2002). A personal representative for the estate of an inmate who committed suicide in a state prison filed a [section] 1983 complaint in state courts, alleging Eighth Amendment violations. The district court granted summary judgment for all of the medical defendants, finding that the alleged missing or tampered documents relating to the deceased inmate's medical treatment did not establish that employees of the prison's contracted health care provider were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The court held that a social worker, medical doctor, and regional supervisor of medical services were not deliberately indifferent. The court found that a licensed psychiatrist was not administratively negligent for allegedly not knowing that the inmate was psychotic and suicidal at all times. The court noted that the decision to scale down the inmate's care was made by a treatment team and was not the result of financial considerations. (Maine State Prison)

U.S. Appeals Court DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE MEDICATION

Robinson v. Hager, 292 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 2002). An inmate sued drug treatment center employees claiming deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The employees appealed the district court verdict for the inmate; the appeals court reversed. The appeals court held the inmate, who had suffered a stroke after being deprived of medication for hypertension for a month, could not recover absent expert medical testimony on causation. According to the court, a reasonable juror could not infer from the evidence whether the inmate's hypertension caused his stroke, or consequently, whether his lapse in hypertension medication had anything to do with his stroke. (Mineral Area Treatment Center, Missouri)

U.S. District Court ALCOHOL/DRUGS FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE

Smith v. Lejeune, 203 F.Supp.2d 1260 (D.Wyo. 2002). Following the death of her husband who had been detained at a county detention facility, a wife brought an action against a physician, physician, nurses and others, alleging deliberate indifference in violation of [section] 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the physician had trained nurses regarding alcohol withdrawal, and the nurses did not have the requisite state of mind, knowledge and disregard of possible risks to sustain a deliberate indifference claim. According to the court, the physician did not fail to train the nurses, where he provided the nurses with protocols and policies to deal with alcohol and alcohol withdrawal, and conducted monthly meetings during which the policies were discussed. The nurses had not identified any signs that the detainee was suffering for alcohol withdrawal, and the detainee had denied any history of suffering from alcohol withdrawal. The detainee had been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, and a breath alcohol test identified a level of .317. (Laramie County Detention Facility, Wyoming)

U.S. Appeals Court DELAY IN CARE DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Walker v. Benjamin, 293 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against prison nurses and physicians, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The district court dismissed the action and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the prisoner's claim for deliberate indifference to untreated pain, and that a nurse and physician were not entitled to qualified immunity for their alleged intentional refusal to treat the prisoner's pain. (Western Illinois Correctional Center)

U.S. District Court DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Warren v. Shelby Count, Tenn., 191 F.Supp.2d 980 (W.D.Tenn. 2001). A former detainee filed a [section] 1983 action against a county, sheriff, and county jail physician, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court dismissed the case, finding that the sheriff was not liable under [section] 1983 and the county was not subject to municipal liability under [section] 1983. The court noted that the "mere fact" that the county had a rather elastic and later-criticized policy regarding the scheduling of sick call at the county jail during the detainee's confinement was not, alone, sufficient to establish liability. The detainee alleged that jail officials ignored his repeated requests for medical attention and pain medication. (Shelby County Jail, Tennessee)