Medical care.

29. Medical Care

U.S. District Court   Bozeman v. Orum, 199 F.Supp.2d 1216 (M.D.Ala.
                      2002). The representative of the estate of a
  FAILURE TO          pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action
  PROVIDE CARE        against a sheriff and officials at a county
                      detention facility, alleging that the detainee's
  DELIBERATE          death was the result constitutional violations.
  INDIFFERENCE        The district court held that detention officers'
                      use of force to restrain the detainee did not
  MENTAL HEALTH       violate his Fourteenth Amendment right against
                      the use of excessive force, even though the
                      officers threatened to "kick" the detainee's
                      "ass." The officers apparently punched or slapped
                      the detainee, and the detainee died as the result
                      of the officers' actions, but the court found
                      that some level of force was necessary to restore
                      order where the detainee was apparently
                      undergoing a mental breakdown in his cell.

                      The court held that nurses at the detention
                      facility were not deliberately indifferent to the
                      serious medical needs of the detainee when they
                      failed to obtain treatment and medication upon
                      learning that the detainee had been evaluated for
                      mental health problems and prescribed medication
                      in the past. The court noted that the nurses had
                      no knowledge during intake beyond a "slight flag"
                      of past evaluations for mental illness and that
                      the detainee had medication to help him "rest."
                      The court also found that the failure of the
                      detention facility to implement a policy
                      requiring staff to follow up on inmates who had
                      acknowledged past mental health problems or
                      evaluations for mental health problems, did not
                      violate the detainee's Fourteenth Amendment right
                      to adequate medical care.

                      The court held that municipal jails are not
                      required to provide on-site psychiatric care for
                      their inmates, and that the detention facility
                      was not required to train its officers in
                      diagnosing or treating mental illness.

                      According to the court, the facility provided
                      adequate training in the proper use of deadly
                      force, including warnings on the dangers of
                      positional asphyxia, and was therefore not liable
                      under [section] 1983 for failing to supervise
                      staff.

                      The court found that summary judgment in favor of
                      the county was precluded by a genuine issue of
                      material fact on the allegation that officers
                      were deliberately indifferent to the medical
                      needs of the detainee by failing to resuscitate
                      him after they realized that he was not
                      breathing.

                      (Montgomery County Detention Facility, Alabama)

U.S. Appeals Court    Bridges v. Rhodes, 41 Fed.Appx. 902 (8th Cir.
                      2002). The personal representative of a prisoner
  DELAY IN CARE       who died of heat stroke while in prison brought
                      a [section] 1983 action against a prison officer,
                      alleging deliberate indifference to the
                      prisoner's serious medical needs. The district
                      court granted summary judgment for the officer on
                      qualified immunity grounds and the appeals court
                      affirmed. The appeals court held that the
                      20-minute delay in getting the prisoner to the
                      infirmary after his heat-related collapse was not
                      unreasonable. The appeals court found that the
                      affidavit of a doctor who reviewed the medical
                      records of the prisoner, in which the doctor
                      listed the heat-related symptoms that the prison
                      officer should have recognized while supervising
                      the prisoner working on the hoe squad, was
                      insufficient to establish that an officer in that
                      position would have know that his actions
                      violated the prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights.
                      (Eastern Arkansas Regional Unit)

U.S. Appeals Court    Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2002).
                      Inmates sued prison officials under [section]
  DELIBERATE          1983 alleging violation of their Eighth Amendment
  INDIFFERENCE        rights. The district court denied summary
                      judgment in favor of the defendants and the
  FAILURE TO          defendants appealed. The appeals court affirmed
  PROVIDE CARE        in part and reversed in part. The appeals court
                      held that correctional officers did not use
                      excessive force when they used two bursts of
                      pepper spray to quell fighting in a cell. But the
                      appeals court found that summary judgment was
                      precluded by fact questions on the issue of
                      officials' potential deliberate indifference to
                      the serious medical needs of inmates in nearby
                      cells who were affected by pepper spray that
                      drifted into their cells. The court noted that
                      excessive force directed at one prisoner can also
                      establish a cause of action for harm that befalls
                      other prisoners. (Pelican Bay State Prison,
                      California)

U.S. District Court   Evans v. Bonner, 196 F.Supp.2d 252 (E.D.N.Y.
                      2002). A county correctional center inmate
  MEDICATION          brought a [section] 1983 action against center
                      nurses, alleging they failed to dispense
  HIV                 medication for his HIV condition in a timely
                      manner. The district court granted summary
                      judgment as a matter of law for the nurses. The
                      court held that even if the aches, pains and
                      joint problems suffered by the inmate were caused
                      by untimely medication, the symptoms did not
                      constitute a condition of urgency or one that
                      might produce death, degeneration or extreme
                      pain. (Nassau County Correctional Center, New
                      York)

U.S. District Court   Fenner v. Suthers, 194 F.Supp.2d 1146 (D.Colo.
                      2002). A state inmate brought a pro se [section]
  DELIBERATE          1983 action against corrections officials,
  INDIFFERENCE        alleging deliberate indifference to his serious
                      medical needs. The district court denied summary
  CONTAGIOUS          judgment for the defendants, finding that an
  DISEASES            issue of fact existed as to whether the officials
                      were entitled to qualified immunity. The inmate
                      alleged that the corrections department's
                      policies, procedures and protocols for treating
                      hepatitis C exhibited deliberate indifferent to
                      his serious medical needs. The court decided not
                      to take judicial notice of information, largely
                      based on Internet websites, cited by the
                      officials in support of their policies and
                      procedures, because the information suffered from
                      evidentiary defects. (Colorado Department of
                      Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court    Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175
                      (9th Cir. 2002). The widow of a manic depressive
  DELIBERATE          detainee who suffered a heart attack and died
  INDIFFERENCE        while in a county jail, sued the county, sheriff
                      and various officials under [section] 1983. The
  INTAKE SCREENING    district court entered summary judgment for the
                      defendants and the widow appealed. The appeals
  PRETRIAL DETAINEE   court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
                      remanded. The appeals court held that several
                      fact issues precluded summary judgment: whether
                      the county's policy of delaying medical screening
                      of combative inmates posed a substantial risk of
                      serious harm to the detainee; whether the county
                      was aware of that risk; whether the nurse who
                      received the detainee's medication at the jail
                      was deliberately indifferent; and whether the
                      county was liable based upon its policy regarding
                      handling of prescription medication. The appeals
                      court found that deputies who had contact with
                      the detainee after he was admitted to the jail,
                      and who took part in the forcible restraint that
                      preceded his death, were not deliberately
                      indifferent to his medical needs because they
                      knew nothing of his mental condition beyond what
                      they could observe. (Washoe County Jail, Nevada)

U.S. Appeals Court    Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002).
                      A class of prisoner's at a women's state prison
  DENTAL CARE         who brought a [section] 1983 action against
                      prison officials moved to extend jurisdiction
  FEMALE PRISONERS    over a consent decree for an additional period of
                      time, to have prison officials held in contempt,
  MENTAL HEALTH       and to compel discovery. The district court
                      denied the motions and granted the prison
                      officials' motion to terminate the consent
                      decree. The appeals court affirmed in part,
                      reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court
                      found that dental care and mental health
                      conditions at the prison did not violate the
                      Eighth Amendment. The appeals court found that
                      officials' substantial compliance with the
                      consent decree judgment was an acceptable defense
                      to the prisoners' motion to hold the officials in
                      civil contempt for past violations of the decree.
                      The court remanded the case for reconsideration
                      of allegations that the officials failed to
                      comply with consent decree requirements regarding
                      medical care. (Washington Corrections Center for
                      Women)

U.S. Appeals Court    Jackson v. Illinois Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760
                      (7th Cir. 2002). A pretrial detainee who was
  FAILURE TO          transported to a police station by a private
  PROVIDE CARE        transportation service at the request of a police
                      department, brought a [section] 1983 action
  TRANSPORT           against the service and one of its drivers,
                      alleging denial of adequate medical care. The
                      district court granted summary judgment against
                      the detainee and the appeals court affirmed. The
                      appeals held that the decision of the driver to
                      transport the detainee to a police station,
                      rather than taking him to a hospital, did not
                      amount to deliberate indifference to the
                      detainee's objectively serious medical needs. The
                      detainee collapsed from an overdose of medication
                      shortly after reaching the police station. The
                      court noted that primary authority for the
                      detainee rested with the police officers, who had
                      last determined that he should be taken to the
                      police station, and the driver lacked medical
                      training or any realistic control over the
                      detainee. According to the court, "deliberate
                      indifference" is simply a synonym for intentional
                      or reckless conduct, and "reckless" describes
                      conduct so dangerous that the deliberate nature
                      of the defendant's actions can be inferred. (City
                      of Chicago, Illinois)

U.S. Appeals Court    Meloy v. Bachmeier, 302 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2002).
                      A former state inmate filed a [section] 1983
  FAILURE TO          action alleging that prison medical personnel
  PROVIDE CARE        violated his civil rights by failing to provide
                      him with a continuous positive air pressure
                      machine (CPAP) to treat his obstructive sleep
                      apnea. The district court denied summary judgment
                      for the director of the prison's medical services
                      and the director appealed. The appeals court
                      reversed and remanded, finding that the director
                      was entitled to qualified immunity. The appeals
                      court held that the decision of the director to
                      adhere to a prison doctor's order that the prison
                      need not provide the inmate with a CPAP machine
                      was objectively reasonable in light of legal
                      rules in place at the time, entitling the
                      director to qualified immunity. The court noted
                      that the director was functioning in an
                      administrative role, even though she had some
                      medical training as a nurse, and she was not
                      responsible for examining and treating the inmate
                      herself. (North Dakota State Penitentiary)

U.S. District Court   Turner v. Kight, 192 F.Supp.2d 391 (D.Md. 2002).
                      A female detainee who was arrested on an
  INTAKE SCREENING    outstanding warrant associated with a civil
                      matter and detained at a jail brought an action
  MEDICATION          against county and state officials. The district
                      court granted summary judgment for the
                      defendants. The court held that arresting and
                      booking officers were deliberately indifferent to
                      the detainee's serious medical needs when they
                      allegedly removed a neck brace and seized
                      medication, ignoring her complaints of pain and
                      muscle spasm. The detainee sometimes limped and
                      walked with a cane, but the court found that the
                      detainee's alleged pain did not rise to the level
                      of a serious medical need. The court granted
                      qualified immunity to the officers, finding that
                      there was no indication that the officers
                      actually knew of, and ignored, a serious need for
                      medical care. The court also found that the
                      officers were not deliberately indifferent by
                      failing to dispense medication in response to the
                      detainee's complaints of pain, where the officers
                      were not permitted to dispense medication and
                      they notified the detention facility's medical
                      staff of a nonemergency situation, who did not
                      respond during the six hours the detainee was
                      confined. (Montgomery County Detention Center,
                      Maryland)