29. Medical care.

U.S. Appeals Court

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

SPECIAL DIETS

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE

MEDICATIONS

Greeno v, Daley, 414 F. 3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005). A state prisoner filed a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded. On remand the district court granted summary judgment to a number of defendants and again dismissed the prisoner's claims against the remaining defendants. The district court also denied the prisoner's motion requesting the assistance of counsel. The prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement was satisfied, even though the prisoner had not appealed every single complaint that he filed. The court held that the appointment of counsel for the indigent prisoner on appeal was warranted, since oral argument would have materially advanced the issues presented. The court ruled that summary judgment for a nurse was precluded by fact issues as to whether she was deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's serious medical needs. The nurse allegedly withheld one particular medication from the prisoner and gave him a medication that was known to aggravate his esophageal condition, and threatened to have him "locked up" if he continued to complain. The court also denied summary judgment for the director of the state corrections department's bureau of health, finding fact issues as to whether the director was deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's deteriorating medical condition. The director had received copies of complaints that the prisoner was filing on a regular basis and these copies detailed the prisoner's severe pain and his repeated requests to be seen by a specialist. The court held that a physician's "dogged persistence" in a course of treatment that was known to be ineffective created a fact issue as to whether he was deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's serious medical needs. According to the court, the prisoner's severe heartburn and frequent vomiting were a serious medical condition, since even a lay person would have recognized the need for a doctor's care to treat that condition. The court found that summary judgment was precluded by fact issues as to whether medical personnel, who were well aware of the prisoner's severe heartburn and frequent vomiting, repeatedly refused to prescribe a bland diet for the prisoner or explore other options. (Racine Correctional Institution, Fox Lake Correctional Institution, Wisconsin)

U.S. District Court

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE

Griswold v. Morgan, 378 F.Supp.2d 328 (W.D.N.Y.2005). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison physicians alleging cruel and unusual punishment. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court held that the physicians were not deliberately indifferent to the inmate's medical needs. The court found that an assertion of pain sensation alone, unaccompanied by any large medical complications, does not amount to a serious medical need for the purposes of the inmate's Eighth Amendment claim. According to the court, an inmate's mere disagreement over the proper course of treatment does not create a constitutional claim of deliberate indifference. The court found that the physicians were attentive and that they responded appropriately to the inmate's medical needs, where they initially treated the inmate's chest pains with medication, tests, and monitoring. When the pain and numbness increased, the physicians referred the inmate to two outside cardiologists and followed their recommendations for treatment with medication. When a third cardiologist recommended surgery, a physician arranged for immediate heart bypass surgery. (Groveland Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court

RESTRAINTS

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

Jarriett v. Wilson, 414 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2005). A prisoner brought a civil rights action against prison officials under the Eighth Amendment, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the prisoner only had an unrecoverable "de minimis injury" for the purposes of his civil rights claim, which was subject to the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court found that the officials' refusal to give the prisoner medical treatment was not objectively unreasonable. The prisoner had been put in a small strip cage and held there for 12 hours. He experienced swelling, pain and cramps in his legs as a result, but these injuries were not serious enough to mention to medical staff on the day of his release from the strip cage, or two days later. When he mentioned them two weeks later there were no medical findings...