Goldson v. David, 3:13-cv-00403

Plaintiff Rodney Goldson, incarcerated at San Quentin, complained of chronic left shoulder pain and limited mobility from 2010 onward; sought imaging, orthopedic referral, and surgery.
Dr. Clarene David (defendant) evaluated Goldson multiple times between Feb 2012 and Jan 2013, prescribed cortisone injection, NSAIDs/Tylenol, and referred him to physical therapy; initially declined immediate MRI/early surgery.
Physical Therapy reported incomplete improvement and requested MRI; David ordered MRI in July 2012 (though she thought it unnecessary) because PT threatened to stop therapy otherwise.
MRI (July 2012) showed only minor abnormalities; several specialists (Drs. Garrigan, Wu, Matan, Lyon) reviewed results with differing views; an orthopedic procedure was eventually recommended and performed March 15, 2013.
Utilization Management denied surgical authorization in Aug 2012, citing recommendation for a full year of physical therapy; David followed that plan and later sought further orthopedic evaluation when PT yielded no further gains.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deliberate indifference for failure to order MRI/X‑ray/orthopedic referral Feb–Jun 2012	David ignored Goldson’s requests and was apathetic, causing harm from delay	David provided reasonable, non‑ignoreant care (injections, PT, meds); MRI not initially medically warranted	Summary judgment for defendant; no genuine issue that treatment was medically unacceptable or knowingly chosen in conscious disregard
Whether differences of medical opinion amount to Eighth Amendment violation	Other providers and PT disagreed; their views show inadequate care	Disagreement among clinicians is insufficient to show deliberate indifference	Held: difference of opinion does not establish Eighth Amendment violation
Relevance of other inmates’ complaints and David’s attitude	Plaintiff cites rude/disrespectful conduct and others’ complaints to show pattern	Attitude and third‑party complaints irrelevant to objective medical care analysis	Held: attitude/other inmates’ complaints do not establish deliberate indifference
Causation / resulting harm from alleged delay	Goldson claims loss of range of motion and worsening condition due to delays	No admissible medical opinion tying earlier care to worsened outcome; specialists sometimes supported conservative course	Held: plaintiff failed to show causal harm from the complained‑of period sufficient to create triable issue

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (to prevail plaintiff must show chosen treatment was medically unacceptable and chosen in conscious disregard)
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) (deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge of substantial risk and disregard)
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (two‑part deliberate indifference inquiry: seriousness and response)
Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (9th Cir. 1996) (choice between alternative treatments ordinarily a difference of medical opinion)
Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1989) (difference of medical opinion insufficient for Eighth Amendment violation)
Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1981) (mere negligence in medical care not a constitutional violation)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and allocation of burden)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute as to material fact standard for summary judgment)