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...