Adrian Anthony v. Shannon Swanson
701 F. App'x 460
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Adrian Anthony, incarcerated in Ohio (Dec 2010–Aug 2014), had preexisting prostate cancer and developed radiation proctitis with chronic rectal bleeding and pain.
- Outside physician Dr. Rajnikant Patel recommended prednisone and later, as a last resort, colostomy surgery; Anthony alleges he informed prison physician Dr. Shannon Swanson of that recommendation.
- Dr. Swanson (and regional director Dr. Daniel Cherry) provided ongoing conservative care in prison (prednisone, topical creams, pain meds, restrictions, outside clinic visits) but did not authorize colostomy; Swanson attests Anthony declined surgery, Anthony says he wanted it but was refused.
- Anthony sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for failure to provide the recommended colostomy; Cherry was sued as supervisor.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Swanson and Cherry; Anthony appealed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to order colostomy amounted to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Anthony: denial of recommended colostomy by outside physician was deliberate indifference to serious medical needs | Swanson/Cherry: provided continuous conservative treatment; Anthony either declined surgery or was offered alternatives; no constitutional violation | Court: No. Denial/choice of different treatment without expert proof of necessity does not establish deliberate indifference |
| Whether Anthony’s condition was so obvious that no expert is needed (objective seriousness) | Anthony: condition and need for surgery were obvious and required jury consideration | Defendants: even if condition obvious, plaintiff complains about adequacy/type of treatment, not total denial | Court: Obviousness standard applies to denial/delay of any treatment, not to claims about denial of a particular treatment; expert evidence required |
| Whether absence of medical expert evidence defeats the claim | Anthony: factual dispute over refusal vs. refusal-to-authorize surgery should go to jury | Defendants: plaintiff lacks medical testimony showing colostomy was necessary or delay harmed him | Court: Affirmative — without medical expert supporting necessity and harm, claim fails as matter of law |
| Liability of supervisory defendant (Dr. Cherry) | Anthony: supervisory responsibility/causal connection implied | Cherry: not personally involved in care; only concurred with conservative plan | Court: Dismissed Cherry—no personal involvement or causal nexus shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (subjective component requires defendant actually drew inference of substantial risk)
- Blackmore v. Kalamazoo Cty., 390 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes obvious medical needs from treatment-choice cases)
- Santiago v. Ringle, 734 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2013) (medical testimony required to show detrimental effect of delay for specific treatment claims)
- Blosser v. Gilbert, [citation="422 F. App'x 453"] (6th Cir. 2011) (no Eighth Amendment violation without medical evidence that surgery was required or delay caused harm)
- Rouster v. County of Saginaw, 749 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard — genuine dispute for trial)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (court must view facts and inferences in light most favorable to nonmovant)