Hill v. Corrections Corp. of America
685 F. App'x 665
10th Cir.2017Background
- Hill injured his wrist Nov 1, 2012, sought care days later; initial treatment included bandage, ice, ketoprofen, and a requested x‑ray taken Nov 28 which radiologist read as normal with soft‑tissue swelling.
- Nurse Practitioner Lynne Thompson ordered the x‑ray, provided a splint and topical treatment, scheduled followups, and later referred Hill to an orthopedist after the orthopedist identified a possible scapholunate dissociation and ordered an MRI.
- MRI (Apr 19, 2013) showed a scapholunate ligament tear; Thompson requested a hand surgery referral on June 19, 2013; Hill saw a hand surgeon in Dec 2013 and Feb 2014 who ultimately recommended no surgery.
- Dr. Louis Cabiling was the supervisory physician listed on various records but the record contains no indication he personally evaluated or was consulted about Hill’s wrist.
- Hill sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Eighth Amendment) and state law; district court granted summary judgment for Thompson and Cabiling on § 1983 claims (finding no deliberate indifference) and dismissed state claims without prejudice; Hill appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nurse Thompson was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need | Thompson delayed/failed to obtain timely appropriate care, worsening injury | Thompson ordered x‑ray, treated symptoms, referred to specialists—no knowledge of risk or deliberate disregard | No deliberate indifference; summary judgment for Thompson affirmed |
| Whether Dr. Cabiling was deliberately indifferent / liable as supervisor | Cabiling (as supervising physician) is responsible for inadequate care and delays | Cabiling had only limited administrative involvement; no personal participation or knowing acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct | No deliberate indifference or supervisory liability; summary judgment for Cabiling affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff preserved challenge to CCA dismissal on appeal | Hill named CCA in notice of appeal and in district court | Hill’s opening brief does not argue CCA claims | Waiver of challenge to CCA dismissal (no appellate relief given) |
| Whether court abused discretion by denying further discovery/response to defendants’ reply evidence | New Thompson declaration could create factual issues; Hill sought to reopen discovery and respond | District court found additional facts would not alter outcome and denied relief as moot | No abuse of discretion; district court did not err in refusing extra discovery/response |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (medical malpractice or negligence not per se Eighth Amendment violation)
- Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2000) (deliberate indifference standard for prisoner medical claims)
- Martinez v. Beggs, 563 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2009) (objective and subjective components of deliberate indifference)
- Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745 (10th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff must show defendants knew of and disregarded substantial risk)
- Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2011) (§ 1983 does not permit respondeat superior; supervisory liability requires deliberate action or acquiescence)
- Bronson v. Swenson, 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2007) (issues not briefed on appeal are waived)