Mathison v. Wilson
17-1165
| 10th Cir. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Mathison, a federal prisoner, sued BOP officials at FPC Florence under Bivens alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to his serious knee pain.
- From Dec. 2011 through 2013, medical staff provided repeated treatment: sick-call visits, multiple steroid injections, NSAIDs (Indomethacin), exams, and x-rays; an outside orthopedic consult occurred in June 2013.
- Orthopedist diagnosed a meniscus tear and arthritis, recommended arthroscopy and eventual knee replacement; URC approved an orthopedic consult and later a surgery referral but an arthroscopy request was discontinued and re-submitted; final regional approval was pending when Mathison was released in Jan. 2014.
- Mathison underwent knee replacement in July 2014 and regained ambulation; he alleged delay and denial of appropriate treatment caused unconstitutional suffering.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no evidence of deliberate indifference; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need by delaying/denying orthopedic care | Mathison: delays and failure to timely obtain surgery show deliberate indifference causing substantial harm | Defendants: provided continuous, documented treatment and sought consultations/surgery; no subjective deliberate indifference | Court: Judgment affirmed — no deliberate indifference; treatment was ongoing and delays did not show culpable state of mind |
| Whether alleged delay resulted in "substantial harm" satisfying Eighth Amendment | Mathison: worsening condition and eventual need for arthroplasty show substantial harm from delay | Defendants: treatment alleviated pain, and administrative/URC delays are not evidence of knowing disregard | Court: Plaintiff’s injuries similar to nonactionable delays (Olson); not enough to meet substantial-harm standard |
| Whether officials are entitled to qualified immunity | Mathison: constitutional violation occurred, so immunity should not apply | Defendants: no constitutional violation; reasonable officials entitled to immunity | Court: Qualified immunity applies because no clearly established constitutional violation was shown |
| Whether disagreement over scope/timing of care equals Eighth Amendment violation | Mathison: disagreement and denied requests show deliberate indifference | Defendants: disagreement about treatment scope is not deliberate indifference | Court: Mere disagreement with diagnosis or desired scope of care is insufficient to infer deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizes implied damages action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (qualified immunity protects officials unless they violate clearly established rights)
- Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205 (Eighth Amendment requires objective serious medical need and subjective deliberate indifference)
- Olson v. Stotts, 9 F.3d 1475 (delay constitutes Eighth Amendment violation only if accompanied by deliberate indifference causing substantial harm)
- Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745 (delay causing unnecessary pain or worsened condition can satisfy subjective element)
- Garrett v. Stratman, 254 F.3d 946 (substantial harm includes lifelong handicap, permanent loss, or considerable pain)
- Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227 (subjective component requires sufficiently culpable state of mind; medical judgment rarely satisfies deliberate indifference)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (negligent medical care does not equal Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (medical malpractice or negligence is not constitutional violation)
- Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803 (disagreement with diagnosis or treatment is not deliberate indifference)