Donald W. Whitehead v. Edward H. Burnside
403 F. App'x 401
11th Cir.2010Background
- Whitehead, an MSP inmate, sues Burnside under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state medical malpractice for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
- Dispute centers on a two-and-one-half week delay in surgery for Whitehead’s broken kneecap after an October 20, 2006 altercation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Burnside; the magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of genuine fact issues.
- Medical records show treating doctors concluded immediate surgery was not required; Burnside was not present at the prison when events occurred.
- Dr. Dellacona, Dr. Niergarth, and Dr. Fossier provided contemporaneous opinions opposing immediate surgery; Whitehead submitted a competing affidavit from Dr. Thompson.
- The court held Whitehead failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact; delay was not shown to worsen his condition, and the evidence favored a lack of deliberate indifference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burnside’s conduct shows deliberate indifference | Whitehead argues delay demonstrates indifference by Burnside. | Burnside’s actions were consistent with medical opinions; delay did not rise to deliberate indifference. | No genuine issue; no deliberate indifference shown. |
| Whether delay evidence requires verifying medical evidence | Whitehead relies on Thompson’s affidavit to prove detrimental delay. | Contemporaneous medical records and treating doctors negate the proffered delay impact. | Contemporaneous records prevail; no material fact issue. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the record | Record demonstrates no genuine issue of material fact and Burnside is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | Summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference standard for medical needs)
- Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1991) (requires serious medical need and egregious conduct to constitute indifference)
- Rogers v. Evans, 792 F.2d 1052 (11th Cir. 1986) (deliberate indifference analysis framework)
- Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2004) (difference of medical opinion does not equal deliberate indifference)
- McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 1999) (malpractice does not automatically equal deliberate indifference)
- Hill v. Dekalb Reg'l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 1994) (delay in treatment must be shown to have detrimental effect)