Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23927

Gonzalez, an inmate at Menard, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly inadequate care for a long-standing inguinal hernia.
Doctors Feinerman and Fahim allegedly refused surgical repair and prolonged conservative treatment despite worsening pain.
Gonzalez repeatedly complained; from 2009–2010 the hernia worsened, protruded, and caused pain and numbness.
The district court dismissed the complaint at screening, finding only a difference of medical opinion and lack of personal involvement by the warden.
On appeal, the court substituted the current warden for injunctive relief and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings.
The court treated certain allegations as plausible deliberate-indifference claims and discussed equal-protection theory and injunctive relief against the warden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the doctors' conduct shows deliberate indifference	Gonzalez claims prolonged, ineffective treatment and failure to surgically repair.	Defendants argue ongoing conservative treatment was appropriate.	Yes, as to potential deviation from professional judgment.
Whether the warden can be sued for injunctive relief	Gonzalez seeks injunctive relief directed at current administration.	Warden's lack of involvement defeats liability for damages and injunctive relief.	Warden Rednour substituted; injunctive relief permitted.
Whether equal-protection claim was viable	Other inmates with hernias received surgery; Gonzalez was denied due to budget.	No explicit claim of disparate treatment shown at screening.	On remand, plaintiff may amend equal-protection claim.
Whether complaint stated a plausible Eighth Amendment claim	Continued pain and delay in treatment constitute deliberate indifference.	Disagreement with medical judgment does not imply indifference.	Plausible claim against doctors if evidence shows blatantly inappropriate response to pain over years.
Procedural posture about amendment on appeal	Gonzalez should be allowed to amend on remand.		Court notes amendment possible on remand; no on-appeal amendment allowed.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussion of subjective element in deliberate-indifference claims)
Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2011) (blatant disregard of pain and risk supports inference of indifference)
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (medical need and response analysis in prison health care)
Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2006) (personal involvement and supervisory liability principles)