Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843

Incarcerated individuals with hepatitis C alleged IDOC medical protocols under Elyea violated the Eighth Amendment by displaying deliberate indifference.
FBOP Guidelines (2003/2005) guided evaluation, testing, biopsy, and antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C and informed IDOC policy.
IDOC implemented a blanket policy requiring at least 18–24 months remaining, plus additional time, before antiviral treatment could begin, ostensibly for administrative reasons.
Roe, Walker, Stasiak, and Stephen asserted their care differed from Guidelines and that the policy caused delays or denial of necessary treatment, worsening outcomes.
The district court denied some defenses and entered a mixed judgment; Roe’s damages were remitted in part, and others were reversed or affirmed as matters of law.
This court affirmed the district court, holding that the two-year policy could constitute deliberate indifference and that causation and damages were adequately shown for Roe; other plaintiffs’ JMOL claims were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the policy caused deliberate indifference to serious medical needs	Roe argues policy denied timely treatment in violation of Eighth Amendment.	Elyea argues policy complied with Guidelines and protected by professional judgment.	Yes; policy violated Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard.
Whether Roe proved injury and causation from the policy	Injuries and symptoms during/after incarceration were caused by policy delays.	Injury causation not proven or attributable to policy.	Record supports causation and compensable injury attributable to policy.
Whether qualified immunity shields Elyea from Roe's claims	Right to adequate medical care was clearly established; policy violated it.	Right not clearly established for the specific policy at issue.	No; right clearly established and policy conduct violated it.
Whether Walker, Stasiak, Stephen were properly decided as JMOL or upheld on appeal	Delay in care harmed them; district court erred in JMOL against them.	Evidence did not support personal liability or causation.	JMOL affirmed for Walker, Stasiak, and Stephen; Roe’s remittitur affirmed.
Whether the appeal was properly brought and remittitur review permissible	Appeal timely despite remittitur; remittitur review permissible.	Remittitur not reviewable; appeal premature.	Appeal timely; remittitur review affirmed; remittitur accepted.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference standard applies to prisoner medical care)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (elements of deliberate indifference: objective need and subjective recklessness)
Safford Unified Sch. Dist. v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (U.S. 2009) (requires context-specific, not generalized, clearly established rights)
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1999) (limits on use of media in enforcement actions; reasonable notice of rights)
Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2007) (broadly recognizes that various medical conditions can be objectively serious)