Wright v. Anding
390 P.3d 1162
| Alaska | 2017Background
- Sean Wright, an Alaska DOC inmate housed in out-of-state private facilities (GEO Group), repeatedly complained of hearing loss and ear infections from 2009–2014 and sought hearing aids.
- Hudson (CO) medical staff treated wax impaction and referred Wright to ENTs/audiologists; multiple external audiological exams (2011, 2013) did not recommend hearing aids; a Pocket Talker was later provided in Alaska.
- Wright sued GEO Group, Hudson health administrator Tamatha Anding, and DOC officials asserting medical malpractice and § 1983 deliberate-indifference claims; he had previously filed and lost a federal suit in Colorado.
- The superior court granted summary judgment dismissing malpractice claims as time-barred and later granted summary judgment for defendants on the § 1983 deliberate-indifference claims; Wright’s motion to disqualify the trial judge was denied.
- Wright appealed, arguing judicial bias, error on limitations/res judicata rulings, that a Hudson physician (Dr. Steffy) ordered hearing aids, and that defendants were deliberately indifferent; the court addressed deliberate indifference and procedural issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial disqualification | Judge McKay was biased—presided over Wright’s criminal case and had been sued by Wright | Prior involvement or being sued does not alone require recusal; no record evidence of bias | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; recusal not warranted |
| Statute of limitations for malpractice | Malpractice arose from failures in 2010–2011; tolling/continuing violation argued | Claim accrued by May 25, 2011 (audiology showing damage); two‑year limitations expired before filing | Malpractice claims time‑barred under AS 09.10.070(a); summary judgment affirmed |
| § 1983 deliberate indifference | Prison medical staff ignored Dr. Steffy’s purported order for hearing aids and denied needed treatment | DOC and Hudson provided timely care, multiple specialist evaluations, and non‑provision of aids reflected medical judgment, not deliberate indifference | Summary judgment affirmed — no genuine fact issue of deliberate indifference; differences of medical opinion insufficient |
| Miscellaneous claims & pretrial deadlines | Multiple other claims (HIPAA, threats, post‑release aids, need for more time) | Many claims not raised below or inadequately briefed; procedural waiver applies | Waived on appeal; not considered further |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment requires prison to provide medical care)
- Larson v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 284 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2012) (deliberate indifference standard applied in Alaska)
- Hertz v. Beach, 211 P.3d 668 (Alaska 2009) (definition of serious medical need and deliberate indifference framework)
- Goodlataw v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., 698 P.2d 1190 (Alaska 1985) (prisoners’ right to medical care under state law)
- Prentzel v. State, Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 169 P.3d 573 (Alaska 2007) (elements of § 1983 claims in Alaska)