Hartz v. Sale
687 F. App'x 783
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Hartz suffered facial fractures in an altercation before incarceration and another jaw injury while in pretrial detention; he sought facial surgery while jailed.
- Emergency-room and jail medical staff provided pain meds, soft diet, ice, antibiotics, dental work (root canals/extractions), and referrals to specialists.
- An otolaryngologist examined Hartz and concluded facial surgery was not medically necessary (elective); Dr. Dennis Sale and jail director Brian Cole relied on that medical judgment and denied surgery.
- The district court ordered a Martinez report summarizing medical records and treatment; Hartz failed to controvert the report with admissible evidence despite extensions and multiple filings.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on Hartz’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 deliberate-indifference claim; the district court granted judgment for defendants and Hartz appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of facial surgery violated the Eighth Amendment (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs) | Hartz: denial of surgery despite ongoing pain and prior fractures showed deliberate indifference | Defendants: providers evaluated and treated injuries; specialist concluded surgery not medically necessary; no disregard of a known substantial risk | Court: No. Hartz failed both objective and subjective elements; disagreement with medical judgment insufficient |
| Whether the Martinez report could be treated as uncontroverted evidence on summary judgment | Hartz: his failure to timely contradict should be excused | Defendants: Martinez report is part of the record and stands unless validly challenged | Court: Martinez report may be treated as uncontroverted; Hartz offered no valid contradictory evidence |
| Whether a difference of medical opinion creates a triable constitutional issue | Hartz: his view that surgery was needed created a dispute | Defendants: mere disagreement with providers is not a constitutional violation | Court: A difference of opinion does not establish deliberate indifference |
| Whether defendants disregarded a substantial risk of harm by providing non-surgical care | Hartz: ongoing pain/swelling and prior fractures posed substantial risk | Defendants: timely exams, referrals, medications, and dental treatment show reasonable measures | Court: No evidence defendants disregarded his needs; treatment was provided and surgery was not deemed necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Beggs, 563 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard in § 1983 prisoner cases)
- Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518 (10th Cir. 1992) (prisoner may present conflicting evidence to challenge Martinez report)
- Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2001) (elements of deliberate indifference: objective and subjective)
- Johnson v. Stephan, 6 F.3d 691 (10th Cir. 1993) (disagreement with medical staff is not a constitutional violation)
- Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (approving district court-ordered prison administration report)