Dobbey v. Mitchell-Lawshea
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20427
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- In January 2011 inmate Lester Dobbey reported a painful, abscessed tooth to a prison medical technician and filed an emergency request; the technician referred him to the prison infirmary.
- Dentist Jacqueline Mitchell-Lawshea learned of the abscess on January 12, scheduled an exam for January 14, but the appointment was canceled on arrival by guard Michael Dangerfield.
- Dobbey repeatedly complained of pain, sought to wait for treatment, and was told by Dangerfield he could not linger; Dangerfield did not notify medical staff.
- Mitchell-Lawshea did not examine Dobbey until January 28 (16 days after learning of the abscess); she prescribed penicillin and extracted the molar on February 3.
- Dobbey sued both the dentist and the guard for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding triable issues on deliberate indifference and recommending appointment of counsel or a neutral medical expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay in treating an abscessed tooth constitutes Eighth Amendment "deliberate indifference" | Dobbey: lengthy delay (16 days) knowing abscess risks and pain shows deliberate indifference | Dentist: delay was not deliberately indifferent; may be negligence or scheduling error | Reversed: a reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference by the dentist for unexplained delay |
| Whether a guard who refused to let Dobbey wait and did not seek medical help is deliberately indifferent | Dobbey: Dangerfield knew of pain and failed to seek medical assistance or notify staff | Dangerfield: not medically trained and had no responsibility because prisoner was "under care" | Reversed: guard’s inaction could constitute deliberate indifference; triable issue remains |
| Standard distinguishing medical malpractice from constitutional violation | Dobbey: deliberate inaction in face of severe, treatable condition meets constitutional standard | Defendants: actions amount at most to negligence/malpractice, not Eighth Amendment violation | Court: deliberate indifference requires knowledge of serious need and failure to act; record permits finding of deliberate indifference |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment given factual disputes | Dobbey: factual disputes about notice, scheduling, and unexplained delays preclude summary judgment | Defendants: no constitutional violation as matter of law | Court: summary judgment improper; factual disputes material and should be for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir.) (cost or danger do not excuse failure to provide care)
- Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (7th Cir.) (deliberate indifference analysis for medical claims)
- Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir.) (guard’s duty to assist prisoners in obtaining medical care)