Jackson v. Pollion
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21983
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff, an Illinois inmate, diagnosed with hypertension in 2007 and prescribed hydrochlorothiazide and a calcium‑channel blocker; alleges a 3‑week interruption of meds beginning Feb 15, 2009.
- Plaintiff claims symptoms (nosebleeds, visual disturbances, headaches, lightheadedness) and alleges defendants (a nurse practitioner and a correctional counselor) were deliberately indifferent in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- At summary judgment, the district court found no deliberate indifference: the nurse practitioner did not know meds were withheld; the counselor (nonmedical staff) assumed medical staff would handle it and at worst was negligent.
- On appeal, Judge Posner affirmed summary judgment but criticized lower courts for treating the brief lapse in medication as an objectively serious harm without medical evidence.
- Medical record: BP 112/82 on Feb 9 (pre‑interruption), 142/78 on Mar 9 (end of interruption), and 114/72 one week after resuming meds; later readings in May were higher (up to 146/90).
- Court held that a short, mild elevation in blood pressure in an otherwise healthy young inmate, unsupported by medical evidence, does not establish the injury or substantial risk required for an Eighth Amendment failure‑to‑treat claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interruption of medication constituted an "objectively serious" medical need | Jackson: 3‑week lapse caused significant symptoms and risk (nosebleeds, vision loss, stroke, death) | Defendants: lapse produced no serious harm; defendants were not deliberately indifferent | Held: The record lacks medical evidence that the brief lapse produced serious harm or substantial risk; not objectively serious in this context |
| Whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference (subjective prong) | Jackson: defendants knew of need and failed to ensure treatment | Defendants: nurse practitioner unaware meds withheld; counselor assumed medical staff would handle it; conduct at worst negligent | Held: No deliberate indifference; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff provided verifying medical evidence that delay caused harm | Jackson: testimony of symptoms but no medical literature or expert corroboration | Defendants: point to blood pressure readings and absence of corroborating medical proof | Held: Verifying medical evidence required for delay cases; plaintiff failed to provide it |
| Proper judicial handling of medical/technical evidence | Jackson: relied on symptomatic allegations and some BP readings | Defendants: relied on medical testimony and routine BP interpretation | Held: Judges and counsel should consult medical literature or experts before assessing objective medical seriousness; court criticized lower courts for failing to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective recklessness)
- Rozenfeld v. Med. Protective Co., 73 F.3d 154 (7th Cir. 1996) (injury requirement for tort claims)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 1994) (causation and evidence standards in constitutional torts)
- Williams v. Liefer, 491 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2007) (delay‑in‑treatment claims require verifying medical evidence)
- Walters v. Edgar, 163 F.3d 430 (7th Cir. 1998) (probabilistic harm can support standing when nontrivial)
- Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977) (per curiam) (injury requirement for judicial relief)