Ortiz v. Webster
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17679
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ortiz, a federal death-row inmate, sues Dr. Webster under Bivens for deliberate indifference to eye disease (pterygia).
- Multiple doctors from 2001 onward recommended excision; prison repeatedly denied surgery or delayed treatment.
- Dr. Webster, medical director since 2003, concluded in 2003 that Ortiz may need surgery within two years but ordered no immediate surgery.
- Between 2003 and 2005 Ortiz received limited follow-up and non-surgical care while his vision deteriorated to 20/100 with corneal distortion noted by several specialists.
- Ortiz filed suit in 2005; after remand, new evidence included an explanatory note about a notation “NO TOWN TRIP” and a non-treating expert’s opinion.
- In 2006–2008 Ortiz ultimately underwent staged surgical treatment; district court again granted summary judgment, which this court vacated and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pterygia was objectively serious enough to trigger Eighth Amendment scrutiny | Ortiz’s condition impaired vision; six doctors urged surgery. | Pterygia was not objectively serious enough until later; treatment could be non-surgical and follow-up adequate. | Objectively serious; genuine dispute remains for trial. |
| Whether Dr. Webster's delay in treatment constituted deliberate indifference | Webster ignored his own 2003 conclusions and delayed needed surgery. | Disagreement among physicians about timing does not prove deliberate indifference; misjudgment is insufficient. | Sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find deliberate indifference; remand for trial. |
| Whether there was an unconstitutional policy barring off-site care for death-row inmates | "NO TOWN TRIP" notation signals a policy against off-site treatment for death-row inmates. | Notation explained as administrative shorthand; no policy preventing off-site care proved; evidence undermines claim. | No independent policy claim; may use notation to support deliberate indifference theory, not as standalone claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference standard requires awareness of risk)
- Duckworth v. Ahmad, 532 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2008) (negligent medical decisions generally not deliberate indifference)
- Norfleet v. Webster, 439 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2006) (difference of medical opinion rarely proves deliberate indifference)
- Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2011) (objective seriousness can be established by impact on vision)
- Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exch. Nat'l Bank, 877 F.2d 1333 (7th Cir. 1989) (proper treatment evaluation should be considered; avoid treating experts as sole arbiters)
- Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment bounds in deliberate indifference cases)
- Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2010) (context of medical treatment disputes in prisons)
- Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2008) (evidence of physician disagreement and indifference standards)