Cox v. Brubaker
558 F. App'x 677
7th Cir.2014Background
- Cox, an Indiana prisoner, sued three Westville infirmary staff for alleged failures to inform about side effects and for deliberate indifference.
- District court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding no constitutional violation and constitutionally adequate treatment.
- Cox had multiple infirmary visits beginning in late 2011 for ankle, knee, tooth pain, and a digestive disorder.
- Treatment included Zantac, Pamelor (dose adjustments), knee braces, naproxen, penicillin, and intermittent steroid consideration.
- Cox argued that nurses and doctors failed to disclose Pamelor side effects and that monitoring and dosing decisions were improperly made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment injury from side effects | Cox alleges undisclosed Pamelor side effects threaten health. | Insufficient evidence of significant or likely side effects; no lasting injury shown. | Summary judgment proper; no demonstrated serious or probabilistic injury. |
| Due process right to informed consent (Fourteenth Amendment) | Prisoners have right to information to make informed treatment decisions. | No controlling right; at best risk disclosure to avoid insubstantial risks. | Not decided to join circuits; Cox lacks likelihood evidence of substantial risks. |
| Deliberate indifference via monitoring and interactions with Pamelor | Staff failed to monitor interactions and risks of Pamelor with other meds. | Regular monthly examinations show no indifference to risk. | No Eighth Amendment violation; monitoring was adequate. |
| Liaw's dosage increase after insufficient relief | Increasing dosage after gum swelling shows reckless disregard. | Dosage adjustments aligned with professional judgment to relieve pain. | No Eighth Amendment violation; treatment reasonable. |
| Krembs' scheduling of a steroid injection versus immediate relief | Delay in immediate injection worsened arthritis pain | Arthritis treated effectively with naproxen; delay not shown to impair health. | No Eighth Amendment violation; treatments resolved pain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Pollion, 733 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2013) (requires injury for Eighth Amendment medical claims)
- White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103 (3d Cir. 1990) (due-process informed-consent right recognized by some circuits)
- Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2006) (informational rights limited to substantial risks)
- Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2011) (deliberate indifference issues involve monitoring and risk)
- Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2009) (standard for evaluating delay or deviation in treatment)