(PC) Kilgore v. Mandeville
2:07-cv-02485
| E.D. Cal. | Feb 21, 2014Background
- Kilgore, a state prisoner at CSP-SAC, brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs related to an inverted nasal papilloma.
- Eight CSP-SAC medical staff defendants are named: Bal, Borges, Wedell; Winton, Forshay; Dunne; Kelly; and Hampton.
- Plaintiff’s condition and alleged delays began December 30, 2005, with ongoing treatment and referrals through January 24, 2008, including ENT referrals, imaging, biopsy, and surgery.
- Plaintiff challenges conservative pre-referral treatment, scheduling delays for ENT services, and post-biopsy/surgical pain management, asserting deliberate indifference.
- The court grants summary judgment for all defendants, finding no evidence of deliberate indifference; post-filing allegations are largely unfounded or non-cognizable.
- The record shows ongoing medical care with multiple ENT evaluations, procedures, and follow-ups by UCD-ENT and CSP-SAC staff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there deliberate indifference before the April 17, 2006 referral? | Kilgore contends early doctors knew or should have known of persistent symptoms and failed to provide adequate outside care. | Wedell, Borges, and Kelly argue conservative treatment was appropriate and not deliberately indifferent. | No deliberate indifference; treatment followed standard conservative approach; no policy culpability by Kelly. |
| Was the April 17, 2006 routine designation of the referral deliberate indifference? | Borges’s routine designation delayed needed ENT evaluation. | Designation was medical judgment; delays later corrected; not deliberate indifference. | Not deliberate indifference; difference of medical opinion insufficient for Eighth Amendment violation. |
| Did scheduling delays for CT, biopsy, and surgery amount to deliberate indifference? | Delays in CT, biopsy, and surgical scheduling worsened Kilgore’s condition. | Scheduling decisions rested with UCD-ENT and scheduling processes; delays were not due to CSP-SAC indifference. | No deliberate indifference; scheduling occurred within or close to reasonable timeframes given external providers. |
| Were post-biopsy and post-surgical pain management delays deliberate indifference? | Kilgore suffered unnecessary pain due to delays and dosage changes in pain meds. | Bal and Wedell provided adequate pain management; any delays were transient and not consciously indifferent. | Not deliberate indifference; pain management deemed constitutionally adequate given circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (prisoner claims require deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (serious medical needs include lasting impairment or significant pain)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (knowledge of substantial risk plus disregard necessary for liability)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (two-prong test: serious need and deliberate indifference with harm)
- Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2012) (difference of medical opinion does not equal deliberate indifference)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (liability requires knowledge of and disregard for an excessive risk to health)
- Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 1994) (delay must cause harm to support deliberate indifference)
- Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404 (9th Cir. 1985) (delay in care must be harmful to state a claim)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute requires admissible evidence)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant; must be genuine)