Jackson Ex Rel. Estate of Tucker v. Buckman
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12127
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Tucker, a pretrial detainee at PCRDF from Sep 28, 2009 to Mar 1, 2010, complained of medical issues including a protruding surgical wound.
- Dr. Carl Johnson examined Tucker in Oct 2009, assessing his abdomen as soft and non-tender, and did not visually inspect the wound beyond that examination.
- Tucker received subsequent treatment for the wound in Nov 2009 after repeated complaints, including antibiotics and ointment.
- On Jan 7, 2010, Tucker suffered a medical code; nurses Anderson and Washburn responded and allegedly dragged him to his bed, causing a back injury and a minor hip tear.
- Tucker sued Dr. Johnson, Nurse Smith, Nurse Anderson, Nurse Washburn, and others; the district court granted summary judgment on § 1983 claims and dismissed state-law claims without prejudice.
- This appeal followed; the court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment rulings and related conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Johnson was deliberately indifferent | Tucker contends the October 2009 visual exam was deficient and constitutes indifference | Johnson’s exam was sufficient; he treated other conditions and ordered further care; lack of visual wound check does not prove indifference | No deliberate indifference; medical malpractice alone not enough |
| Whether Nurse Smith’s conduct breached medical care duties | Smith refused or failed to treat the surgical wound by claiming it predated incarceration | No evidence that Smith refused or failed to treat the wound | No deliberate indifference shown |
| Whether Anderson and Washburn used excessive force in responding to the medical emergency | Dropping Tucker on the bed and the nose strike were punitive and excessive | Actions were incidental to addressing a medical emergency and not punitive | De minimis force applied; not actionable; no punitive purpose proven |
| Whether Holladay and Morgan are liable for supervisory or related § 1983 claims | Failure-to-supervise theory as to medical care | No underlying constitutional violation to base liability on supervisory claims | Affirmed on lack of underlying constitutional violation; supervisors not liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (malpractice not equivalent to deliberate indifference)
- Fourte v. Faulkner Cnty., 746 F.3d 384 (8th Cir. 2014) (medical malpractice not deliberate indifference; expert-level scrutiny required)
- Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234 (8th Cir. 1997) (deliberate indifference requires more than negligence)
- Scott v. Benson, 742 F.3d 335 (8th Cir. 2014) (deliberate indifference analysis requires objective and subjective prongs)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (use of force must reflect legitimate governmental purpose; de minimis force not actionable)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (excessive-force due-process analysis; objective reasonableness standard)
- Leary v. Livingston Cnty., 528 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2008) (de minimis force not cognizable under due process)
- Andrews v. Neer, 253 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2001) (pretrial detainees’ due-process claims cull de minimis force not actionable)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (context on force and injury relevance to constitutional claims)
- Vaughn v. Greene Cnty., 438 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2006) (due-process standard for medical care for pretrial detainees)