Carrie Sama v. Edward Hannigan
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2107
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Sama, a Texas prisoner, challenged a radical hysterectomy performed without her clear consent during cervical cancer treatment.
- Pre-surgery, Sama stated she did not want removal of her remaining ovary and sought to preserve fertility; she consented to a radical hysterectomy with possible ovarian removal contingent on intraoperative findings.
- Dr. Benoit performed the surgery with Dr. Hannigan present; the left ovary appeared grossly abnormal and was removed to access lymph nodes and complete the procedure.
- Pathology showed no local cancer; the ovary was deemed nonfunctional, though not conclusively nonviable for eggs; Sama later claimed ongoing leg weakness she attributed to lymph node removal.
- Sama sued Benoit, Hannigan, and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983/§ 1985, alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations related to unwanted medical treatment and deliberate indifference.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the physicians on qualified-immunity grounds and dismissed certain defendants; it did not resolve Sama’s Fourteenth Amendment claim in depth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment: deliberate indifference standard | Sama asserts physicians disregarded serious medical needs by unnecessary treatment and removal of ovary. | Physicians provided timely, reasoned care; no deliberate indifference; qualified immunity applies. | Qualified immunity granted; no genuine dispute on deliberate indifference. |
| Fourteenth Amendment: right to refuse unwanted medical treatment | Removal of the ovary without consent violated her liberty interest in refusing treatment. | Consent to radical hysterectomy overlapped with potential ovary removal; ongoing intraoperative decisions were within medical judgment. | Not clearly established that removal violated due process; qualified immunity shields defendants. |
| Procedural issue: recusal appeal | Judge biased on women's issues warranted recusal. | Recusal ruling was proper but disputed on jurisdiction/timeliness. | No appellate jurisdiction; issue waived. |
| Waiver of equal protection claim under Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments | Equal protection asserted but not argued on appeal. | Waived due to lack of argument on appeal. | Waived. |
| ADA claim raised on appeal | Sama became disabled due to surgery; ADA claim asserted on appeal. | ADA claim not raised below; not reviewable on appeal. | Not considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) (liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment; balancing interests)
- Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (liberty interests in avoiding unwanted medical treatment in prison)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two-step qualified immunity analysis; clearly established law standard)
- Kovacic v. Villarreal, 628 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2010) (burden shifting on qualified-immunity analysis)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (precedent need not be on point but must place question beyond debate)
- Harper v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (medical rights contextual to imprisonment)
- Crandall v. Barfield, Not included as irrelevant () ()