Medical care.

• Position: Table

29. MEDICAL CARE U.S. District Court Allah v. Goord, 405 F.Supp.2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. ADA- Americans with 2005). A state inmate who used a wheelchair Disabilities Act brought a pro se action alleging failure of DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE corrections officials to safely transport TRANSPORTATION him to and from outside medical providers. WHEELCHAIR The district court granted me defendants' motions for dismissal in part, and denied in part. The court held that me inmate's allegations with respect to the state corrections department were sufficient to establish a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to the court, corrections officials were not entitled to qualified immunity from liability under [section] 1983 for injures sustained while being transported in an unsafe van, where their conduct amounted to more than an ordinary lack of due care for me prisoner's safety. The court held that their decision to place me inmate back in a wheelchair after he fell once demonstrated complete disregard for his safety. The inmate alleged mat he suffered a "serious injury (to) his head, neck and back" when he fell to the floor of the van in question and suffered "unnecessary pain and discomfort, permanent disability and mental distress." The van driver allegedly speeded and then stopped short on more than one occasion, and other wheelchair-using inmates had been injured in the same manner during transport. (Green Haven Correctional Facility, New York) U.S. District Court Baird v. Alameida, 407 F.Supp.2d 1134 DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE (C.D.Cal. 2005). A insulin-dependent SPECIAL DIETS diabetic inmate brought a civil rights action against state prison officials claiming they acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by requiring the prison to serve a "Heart Healthy" diet to all inmates and failing to make provisions for therapeutic outpatient diets. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials. The court held mat the inmate was provided with a diet that was medically appropriate for diabetics and that the diet had not been shown to be the cause of the inmate's diabetic complications. (Wasco State Prison, California Men's Colony, and Avenal State Prison, California) U.S. District Court Bartlett v. Pearson, 406 F. Supp. 2d 626 DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE (E.D. Va. 2005). A state prison inmate who SMOKE was a non-smoker suffering from asthma, brought a [section] 1983 Eighth Amendment action against corrections officials alleging that being housed in a cell and housing unit with inmates who smoked endangered his health. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held the officials were not deliberately indifferent to the inmate's request for non-smoking housing and they were not indifferent to the inmate's asthma. The court noted mat an allegation that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) posed an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future health is cognizable under the Eighth Amendment. The prison had a policy aimed at limiting, when practicable, inmates' exposure to ETS, and they twice offered the inmate the option of residing in special or segregated housing. The inmate was moved to a non-smoking area after being housed with smokers for a total of 17 weeks, which the court found to be "not unreasonable" given the level of crowding at the prison and the fact that safety concerns took precedence over smoking preferences. (Sussex II State Prison, Virginia) U.S. District Court Billops v. Sandoval, 401 F. Supp.2d 766 DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE (S.D. Tex. 2005). A representative of a prisoner's estate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison doctors, alleging that by failing to adequately supervise their medical staff, they were deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's serious medical condition, resulting in the prisoner's death. The doctors moved to dismiss the action and me district court denied me motion. The court held mat the representative stated a cause of action by alleging that the doctors were me persons who were ultimately responsible for me prisoner's treatment and that they had the legal authority and duty to supervise their nursing and physician's assistant staff. The representative alleged that the doctors, despite their duty, entirely failed to supervise staff's treatment of the prisoner, and were therefore deliberately indifferent to his care. According to the representative, the doctors' indifference for a period of two months caused the prisoner's death. (Clemons Unit, Texas Department of Criminal Justice) U.S. District Court Boomer v. Deperio, 405 F.Supp.2d 259 DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE (W.D.N.Y. 2005). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 Eighth Amendment action against physicians employed by a state corrections department, alleging deliberate indifference to the prisoner's diabetes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held mat the physicians were not deliberately indifferent, given evidence of prescribing insulin, adjustment of insulin levels, and supplying of self-monitoring instruments. The court noted that the inmate's failure to name all of the physicians involved in the alleged mistreatment in his administrative grievance did not automatically preclude naming previously unnamed physicians in his [section] 1983 suit. (Attica Correctional Facility, New York) U.S. Appeals Court Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. DELAY IN CARE 2005). The representative of the estate of DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE a pretrial detainee who had died during a struggle with county correctional officers brought a [section] 1983 suit alleging use of excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment for several defendants but denied summary judgment for corrections officers. The officers appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held mat the officers' alleged conduct in subduing me detainee was actionable as excessive force and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court also held that the officers' alleged conduct following the struggle--waiting 14 minutes before summoning medical assistance even though the detainee appeared lifeless--was actionable as deliberate indifference and the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court noted that the law defining excessive force was clearly established at the time of the incident, and the officers should have known that continuing to apply force to the unruly detainee after he had given up his struggle was not acceptable. (Montgomery County Detention Facility, Alabama) U.S. District Court Brookins v. Williams. 402 F.Supp.2d 508 MEDICATION (D.Del. 20051. A former pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action against a prison warden, alleging violation of his Eighdi Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the warden. The court held that forcing the detainee to sleep on the floor, without a mattress, next to a toilet was not punishment and therefore did not violate his due process rights, where the conditions served a legitimate governmental purpose of housing inmates in an overcrowded facility and only lasted for a period of five days. The court found that the warden was not deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of the detainee, where me inmate was given all of his medication within a day of being booked, except for medication which the inmate was unable to name for prison medical staff. The detainee was given tests to determine what he would need to treat his detected conditions. (Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Delaware) U.S. Appeals Court Burger v. Bloomberg. 418 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. ADA- Americans with 2005 (1). Following the death of an inmate, Disabilities Act an action was brought under me RA- Rehabilitation Act Rehabilitation Act alleging inadequate medical care of the inmate's diabetes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The personal representative of the inmate's estate appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The court held that "we agree with two other circuits that have recently concluded [that] a lawsuit under the Rehab[ilitation] Act or me Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) cannot be based on medical treatment decisions." (South Dakota Department of Corrections) U.S. District Court Daniels v. Correctional Medical Services. DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE Inc., 380 F.Supp.2d 379 (D.Del. 20051 An FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE inmate brought a pro se [section] 1983 MEDICATION action against a prison's health care provider, physician and nurse alleging deliberate indifference to his medication needs. The district court held that the provider was not deliberately indifferent to the inmate's serious medical needs. The inmate suffered from a ruptured appendix and hernia, but the court found no evidence that it was obvious to the provider that the inmate was suffering from something more than his usual stomach problems. According to the court, the inmate was not denied medical care where he was examined after he complained of problems with an incision, he was given a hernia belt, and he was approved for corrective surgery when his hernia did not improve. (Delaware Correctional Center) U.S. District Court Davis v. Carroll, 390 F.Supp.2d (D.Del. DELAY IN CARE 2005). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE action against prison personnel alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that the inmate stated a claim of excessive force with his allegations mat correctional officers harmed him on two different occasions while he was handcuffed. The court also found that the inmate stated a claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The inmate alleged that a deputy warden wanted to "just stitch him up" when...