Ann Dulany v. Mel Carnahan

ARNOLD, Before RICHARD S. Chief HANSEN, Judge, Judge, and Circuit BATTEY,1 Judge. District HANSEN, Judge. Circuit group of female inmates plaintiffs, prisons, brought this from Missouri state two prison and officials against suit various state (1994), claiming pursuant § to U.S.C. 1983 prison state officials have been defendant deliberately to their medi- indifferent serious cal in of their constitutional needs violation rights Ameri- rights secured under the (ADA), Act 42 U.S.C. cans with Disabilities (1994). § The district court2 12101-12213 granted summary in of the favor arguing plaintiffs appeal, defendants. granting court erred sum- the district mary judgment allowing them without discovery. They con- opportunity for also erroneously made tend that the district court credibility on the deliberate determinations issue, failed to consider indifference record, claims whole considered isolation, failed to consider the threat of systemically deficient injury alleged erroneously system, dis- health care ADA affirm. missed their claims. We I. group female are a

prisoners in two Missouri incarcerated Renz Correctional Center facilities —the DC, They Winter, Correctional Center. Margaret Washington, argued Chillicothe (Richard Sindel, MO, complaint Clayton, filed a on behalf themselves Mohadedu H. Jones, Project prisoners all incarcerated Missouri female F. National Prison facilities, DC, alleging Missouri Foundation, Washington, ACLU MO, Department providing inad- Beetem, City, of Corrections on the Jefferson Jon brief), equate prisoners. for women plaintiffs-appellants. medical care for Jr., Gaitan, Judge, United Battey, Fernando J. Richard Chief The Honorable 1. The Honorable H. Judge the Western District States District District Court for the District United States Dakota, sitting by designation. Missouri. South sought rights deliberately to assert the the defendants been indif- disabilities, alleging to their prisoners ferent serious medical needs.3 Be- female state officials are named the defendant cause the were unable to indifference, complying with the ADA. The demonstrate deliberate the dis- class certification. moved for trict court denied their motion for class certi- plaintiffs appeal. fication. The moved to dismiss or sup- summary judgment, alternative for affidavits,

ported by physician the relevant II. many policies, institutional volumes review de novo the district allegations medical records relevant grant summary judgment, applying court’s time, specified complaint. At the same the same standards the district as court. provided plaintiffs’ the attor- defendants the 1226, Mayard Hopwood, v. 105 F.3d 1227 neys with the remainder of the (8th Cir.1997). Summary judgment appro is records, documenting treatment for medical priate if the record that there is “show[s] that not addressed conditions were as to and genuine issue material fact that 1,1995, September plain- complaint. the On moving party judgment the entitled to a as the district court for an extension tiffs moved 56(e). matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. We .a respond of in to to the defen- time and view the facts the inferences to be drawn summary judgment for or- dants’ motion light to from them the most favorable fully der review the records and to medical nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. by The provided documents the defendants. 574, 587, Corp., Zenith Radio Co. v. 475 U.S. granted plaintiffs an extra district court (1986). 1348, 1356, 538 106 S.Ct. 89 L.Ed.2d respond. The days 30 to submitted 56(c) entry summary of “Rule mandates the affidavits, ex- affidavits of medical inmate judgment, adequate discovery after time for opposition perts, other documentation motion, against fails upon party to summary judgment to mo- the defendants’ showing make a sufficient to establish the tion. par of an to that existence element essential 2, 1995, moved On October the defendants ease, ty’s party on which that will bear stay discovery pending to court district proof Corp. of the burden at trial.” Celotex dispositive of their motion. the determination Catrett, 2548, 317, 322, 477 106 v. U.S. S.Ct. stay support In for a motion their (1986). 2552, L.Ed.2d 265 look to the 91 We discovery, the defendants asserted that an law determine whether ele substantive voluntarily they volumes documents case, “[ojnly ment is essential dis provided sufficient to evaluate the ade- were might facts affect the putes over out quacy of the medical care. governing law of the suit under the will come urged allow a the court not to defendants entry preclude summary properly expedition. plaintiffs opposed fishing Liberty Lobby, judgment.” Anderson v. motion, summary judgment arguing Inc., 242, 248, 2505, 2510, 477 106 S.Ct. U.S. parties inappropriate would be before (1986). Eighth 202 Amend 91 L.Ed.2d adequate opportunity develop the had an ment, through applied to states as 5,1995, discovery. through facts On October Amendment, provides the sub Fourteenth staying the district court entered an order hand. The law for the case at stantive discovery. Eighth proscription Amendment’s cruel obligates prison offi punishment reviewing the documents and affida- and unusual After provide medical care. by the district cials to inmates with parties, vits submitted both 97, 103, Gamble, for v. 429 U.S. 97 granted the defendants’ motion See Estelle court (1976). 285, 290, part, concluding 251 To summary judgment L.Ed.2d constitutionally inade prevail to create claim of the 20 had failed care, must quate medical the inmate show genuine of material fact to indicate issue specifical- opportunity to provisionally sum- the defendants an court denied allow The district Thus, Doe, will not plaintiff, ly her claim. her claims be mary judgment to one Jane refute as appeal. identity in this to reveal her discussed ordered to these continuance to review conduct amounted to officials’ documents, they did therein assert prisoner’s] [the indifference to “deliberate incomplete or was at the documentation Id. 97 S.Ct. serious needs.” discovery neces- Rahija, specific was 291; that additional see Coleman Cir.1997). summary sary in for them to order resist They granted motion. Discovery A. days respond and in which to additional 30 by summary judgment they opposed then first contend phy- filing some their sworn statements and granting summary court erred district in a they While asserted sician affidavits. affording opportu them an judgment without summary judg- opposition of their footnote discovery. re nity adequate to conduct summary judgment premature ment that discretion a district view for abuse of discovery, opportunity due to the lack ripe for that a claim is court’s determination they specific articulate discov- failed to what Temporomandib judgment. summary In re prevented ery lacking that them (TMJ) Prod. Li Implants Liab. ular Joint nor adequately resisting summary judgment, (8th Cir.1997). tig., 113 F.3d further did seek a continuance. give parties the trial must While court discovery, adequate time to conduct see Celo opposed mo- plaintiffs the defendants’ 2552, 322, 106 at Corp., at S.Ct. tex 477 U.S. discovery argued that stay only tion to but 56(c) require completion the of Rule does not they general entitled to information may discovery properly before a court all likely to person such name of each as the summary In re Im grant judgment. TMJ information, copy all a of have discoverable Litig., 113 F.3d at 1489. plants Prod. Liab. possession that in the defendants’ documents 56(f) summary party opposing a Rule allows alleged in disputed the facts are relevant to judgment postpone seek a continuance identity any expert wit- pleadings, the the of until summary judgment adequate a decision trial, may and a nesses who be used at completed. 1490. discovery has Id. at been opinions expressed. all to be statement of continuance, seeking party such a the When plaintiffs they Additionally, the asserted judgment an opposing summary must file to tours of the correctional were entitled court to affidavit with the trial show what facilities, to the medical records access discovery might specific facts further unveil. inmate, re- every quality improvement all Lab., Inc., Humphreys v. 990 Roche Biomed. response complaints, ports inmate made Cir.1993). (8th 1078, party a F.2d “If levels, staffing staffing documentation judgment summary motion does opposing plaintiffs patterns, inmate deaths. 56(f) Rule shelter under or other not seek sought they “to discover critical said that continuance, generally a court wise ask for facts,” 199), they App. at did (Appellants’ granting abuse sum does not its discretion particular what critical facts articulate mary judgment on the record before based they develop hoped to unveil. needed to Litig., Prod. Implants In re TMJ Liab. it.” they plaintiffs the appeal, On assert at 113 F.3d 1490. attempted to the would defen- have discover 56(f) state mind de- plaintiffs not file a dant officials’ did Rule regarding posing the medical accompanying affidavit articulat them motion and knowledge of provided inmates and their discovery was ing that further essential system. summary in the medical care deficiencies opposition their of the defendants’ specific facts Their to unveil these intention judgment motion. The defendants voluntari court in pages expressed was district ly produced of docu thousands stay the ments, plaintiffs’ either resistance to rec including the contin- discovery request in their for a ords, policies, and the relevant institutional uance documents. summarizing plain to review defendants’ physician affidavits in- Further, opining record this case was tiffs’ medical records summary adequate appropriate upon which make medically plaintiffs received determination, the defen- because plaintiffs requested a adequate care. The affidavits, of inmates involves both the rele- to the medical needs expert provided dants objective subjective component. and a policies, and all of the vant Coleman, 114 F.3d at 784. See also Farmer Additionally, medical records. Brennan, 825, 114 511 U.S. S.Ct. affidavits and ex- v. responded with their own (1994). Thus, must case is unlike 128 L.Ed.2d811 pert affidavits. (1) objective suffered in which we held that record demonstrate prior cases (2) ly summary judgment. serious medical needs and inadequate (8th Jenkins, actually prison officials knew of -but deliber 919 F.2d Smith v. See Coleman, Cir.1990) ately summary disregarded those needs. (reversing grant society 114 F.3d does not indiffer- “Because judgment on a medical deliberate expect prisoners unqualified will nei- where the record contained ence claim care, nor evi- access to health deliberate indifference plaintiffs medical records ther the care); Eighth to medical needs amounts to appropriate standard of dence of Inc., Tracor, only if needs are 1131-34 Amendment violation those v. 856 F.2d Palmer ” McMillian, Cir.1988) (8th 503 U.S. summary judgment ‘serious.’ Hudson (holding 1, 9, 995, 1000, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 only affidavit on premature because the (1992). con defen- failure to treat a medical “[T]he an unsworn affidavit of record was Here, punishment re- dition does not constitute within attorney). dant’s meaning Eighth un Amendment and did not articu- sponded to the motion discovery prevented less officials knew that the condition why lack of late an excessive risk to the inmate’s adequately opposing the motion. them from created and then failed to act on that appropri- not take health knowl Because the did Nix, summary edge.” Long v. delay entry of action to ate Cir.1996). long As as this threshold is not purpose obtaining addi- judgment for the crossed, have no constitutional necessary right resist inmates specific facts to tional requested motion, particular to receive a or course conclude that the district we cannot treatment, prison remain free to determining doctors court abused its discretion independent judgment. medical summary judg- exercise their ripe for that the case may be demon Implants Prod. Id. Deliberate indifference In re TMJ ment. See intentionally by prison guards strated Litig., 113 F.3d at 1491. Liab. deny delay or access to medical care or inten treatment, prescribed tionally interfere with B. to Dismiss Motion respond to by prison doctors who fail to of this turning Before to the merits Estelle, needs. prisoner’s serious medical motion to appeal, consider the defendants’ we 104-05, Mere at 291-92. 429 U.S. at move to dismiss the dismiss. The defendants however, negligence malpractice, medical plaintiffs on the appeals of certain named to rise to a constitutional are insufficient either releaséd ground that have been Id. at 97 S.Ct. at 292. violation. insti custody or released from the two from ease. The release of tutions involved case, court exam In this district prisons renders these from plaintiff each claims and affidavits of ined the relief, injunctive request for moot their genu had a to whether she raised determine they pursued. only remedy See was the on each element dispute ine of material fact Boyd, 945 F.2d Smith v. to survive the sum her claim sufficient Cir.1991). Accordingly, grant the motion we court mary judgment The district motion. of Alisa A. appeals and dismiss the to dismiss most of the concluded that while Foster, Collins, Teuber, Kimberly Brenda needs, none had alleged had serious medical Merriweather, O’Neil, Leta Treva Carmen a dispute fact from which genuine raised Salyer, and Trenaee White. prison that the trier of fact could conclude deliberately indifferent to had been officials Indifference Deliberate C. medical needs. The her serious court that the district disagree and Eighth An claim that contend Amendment making determi- by improperly factual deliberately erred indifferent prison officials were subjective has consultants who concerning the defendants’ been sent outside nations she suffers from Crohn’s not concluded mind. state of rec- disease. assert review the record convinces us Our specialists of outside were fol- ommendations improper make did not the district court coronary artery lowed and heart dis- for her concerning the defen- determinations factual diagnostic procedures eases and that Rather, subjective of mind. for state dants’ provided peptic her ulcer. treatment were for plaintiff, district court each individual alleges prison failed to fol- She officials and concluded that examined evidence con- low the recommendations of her outside either to demonstrate plaintiff had failed sultants, remains free doctor objectively medical or to need serious independent professional exercise his or presented by the records refute the medical and an inmate is not entitled demonstrating that care had been defendants any particular Long, course treatment. Contrary conten- provided. Dulany untimely F.3d at 765. also asserts tion, many district court’s indication that care, allegedly indicating disregard follow-up alleged objectively seri- had no harm of a risk. She demonstrates known not compel does ous medical conditions treatment, any delay however. the district court automatic conclusion agree with the district court’s conclusion fact-findings regarding improper made Dulany’s records medical indicate that subjective state of mind. Medi- defendants’ physicians actively to her attended .have in each instance that the cal records revealed diagnostic provided procedures needs and to and responded provided defendants attempts pain; to determine cause of medical needs. treatment there is no evidence indicate free can be “found from liabil- Prison officials officials rea- did not risk, reasonably they responded ity if to a sonably her medical needs. ultimately was not even if the harm averted.” Taylor Lillian asserts she has Fanner, 844, 114 S.Ct. at 1982- U.S. care. appropriate received mental health indicating face records 83. In the of medical complains that she receive her She does not provided physician that treatment was regularly and fail to medications that doctors indicating provided affidavits inquire rec into essential facts. Her medical cannot adequate, an inmate create psychologist ords she has seen indicate merely stating question fact that she psychiatrist on numerous and has occasions adequate she did not feel received treatment. prescribed psychiatric been medication for carefully considered evidence We have problems. ex presented two claims, briefly relating to each pert treating physician of her affidavits —that them below. summarize psychiatrist that of a stated —which Dulany alleges has not received Ann she Taylor appropriate received treatment medically appropriate treatment for her con- summary judgment, she care. To resist coronary ar- ditions of Crohn’s disease presented Rutten the affidavit Dr. Rhoda diagnosed tery Although with a disease. berg, psychiatric her prison examined ulcer, no peptic she contends medical evi- Taylor pre notes that was records. She supports diagnosis. She also com- dence this pre-lithium workup scribed lithium without physical plains that she has not had a exami- first check lithium levels presented nation since 1987. The defendants Dr. exceeded the recommended standard. records, diagno- which confirm a Ruttenberg Taylor’s record concluded that peptic ulcer but do confirm adequacy sis of of care questions “raises about the diagnosis provision- of Crohn’s disease. One given App. patient.” (Appellant’s this 646.) diagnosis possibility possi of Crohn’s may al noted this affidavit indicate While disease, diagno- supply not a negligence, but definitive it is ble insufficient Grossly many and a later record entered after inference of deliberate indifference. sis procedures pain incompetent inadequate can consti diagnostic abdominal care indifference in any diagnosis Crohn’s disease. tute deliberate violation ruled out Eighth is Dulany Amendment where the treatment records indicate that Medical counseling. preventive The affida- intentional received as to evidence inappropriate so speculation than provide provides essen- vit no more mere a refusal to maltreatment Smith, Dr. Rut- acted F.2d at 93. about whether the officials with tial care. indifference, speculation express opinion is not tenberg deliberate does grossly inadequate summary or re- a motion for provided was sufficient to survive Taylor. Taylor judgment. serious harm sulted a trier of provide evidence

fails to plaintiffs liken this case to DeGidio her medical an inference that fact could draw (8th Cir.1990), Pung, evi- grossly inappropriate or treatment present is far afield from the facts of case maltreatment. denced intentional showed that DeGidio. Evidence DeGidio al- She Vicky suffers seizures. Williams negli- indifference and officials’ irregularly medical staff leges that gence toward an outbreak of tuberculosis is on levels while she monitors her blood be- resulted almost 200 inmates infections medical records show Her medications. years. period ing a few For a infected within treatment and fre- received' both she has years during which the out- of about five reg- monitoring, though perhaps not at quent spread, prison officials began and break prefer. She ac- as she would ular intervals control, responsible supervision, for the prison medical staff knowledged that and administration of health services at reports levels when she does check her blood contrary, prison. at 529. To the Id. high. are Her own feeling the levels case, Department of present the Missouri frequéncy of monitor- with the disagreement Corrections has contracted Correctional ques- not create a ing blood levels does Services, provide general Inc. Medical as it does not of deliberate indifference tion inmates, and the defen- health care unnecessary inflic- and wanton indicate “an expert testimony provided unrefuted dants “repugnant pain” or tion of treatment describing prisons’ medical and mental Estelle, 429 mankind.” the conscience of policies appropriate. as Primus health care 105-06, at 292. 97 S.Ct. U.S. at only plaintiff to raise the issue of the is the treatment in the com- prison’s tuberculosis She com- Larfay Primus has"tuberculosis. records indicate that plaint, and her medical adequate that she has not received plains treatment to prison officials administered on how to and was instructed treatment present evidence from her. has failed She Her medical records her medication. take did not which to infer that defendants con- that she did receive instruction show reasonably to the risk. medications, indicated cerning that she information, and that she she understood treatment, records also indicate report- Medical although she was

received continuing basis for an seen on a treat- Primus was showing up for her first two ed as not though complaints, these physi- earache and other presented a ments. The defendants complaint as a basis were not listed stating she has received cian’s affidavit that that summary Dr. affidavit states her claim. Start’s oppose To adequate treatment. with mul Primus’s ear infection “was treated presents the affidavit of judgment, Primus eventually Start, pris- tiple drugs [Primus] and her devel Armond H. who reviewed Dr. may disability may or oped significant that that her a records and concluded on medical by specialty consul prevented tubercu- not have been [prison’s record “illustrates 417.) App. at The exis (Appellants’ adequate.” tation.” program is not losis] control' 410.) However, course of treat possible a alternate Dr. tence of App. at (Appellant’s ment, may have been “may not” gives no basis for the conclu- affidavit Start’s successful, to raise an infer is not sufficient program is control sion that the tuberculosis where deliberate indifference more than ence of adequate, and he does no not ultimate reasonably but prison officials acted questions He questions he has. articulate Farmer, 511 See ly failed to avert harm. Primus’s tuberculosis the cause of whether Primus’s at 1982-83. why at investigated, U.S. adequately infection was tried, prison officials indicate that given, she records tests were and whether three skin unsuccessfully, Hughes her ear infec- to treat Becca asserts that she suffers albeit carpal syndrome from tunnel and tendinitis. tion. Among things, complains that other she her major diagnosed with Pamela Williams s are specialist’s outside recommendations i contends that she depression. She followed and she has not offered been by psychiatrist and that being a seen surgery syndrome. for carpal tunnel basic changes her or discontinues prison doctor presented physician’s The defendants a affi by psychiatrist. review a medication without stating diagnosed davit that she has not been presented of her the affidavit The defendants carpal receiving tunnel that she is and psychiatrist, a who treating physician and appropriate treatment. doctors Prison appropriate received she determined Hughes specialist, prescribed- sent medi The district court noted health care. mental cation, performed diagnostic procedures by psy psychologist or was seen that she specialist for her. found no indication of year, psycho one received 19 times chiatrist carpal tunnel. The latest examination counseling year, logical times another sympto originally who said she was doctor least 15 for various other was seen at times carpal suspects malin matic tunnel now of Dr. She submitted the affidavit ailments. event, gering part. showing on her In Metzner, psy Jeffrey examined her L. who physician might that another have ordered expressed He concern over chiatric records. different tests and treatment does not show appeared that her the fact medications Petrovsky, deliberate indifference. Noll v. changed direct contact have been without (8th Cir.1987). 461, 462 F.2d prescribing physician. her and the between opinion, “very In it was unclear” whether his Lisa Suter suffers from Crohn’s disease adequate to attend to her treatment complains obtaining of problems neces- App. (Appellants’ serious medical needs. sary supplies. alleges She 636.) equivocal opinion is not suffi Such pap no she had an abnormal smear but fol- give of deliberate cient to rise an inference low-up. There is that she has evidence inade “Grossly incompetent or indifference. always supplies received the needed quate can deliberate indiffer care constitute obtaining sup- the defendants had trouble be “so provided ence” but the must occasions, plies on two the medical rec- mal inappropriate as intentional evidence generally supplies ords indicate that were provide essential treatment or refusal to regularly parents issued to that her her and Smith, A medical care.”. 919 F.2d at 93. purchased supplies wrong for her when “very unclear” expert opinion it appliances were ordered. Records indicate simply adequate is whether treatment was prescribed less than number when question to create fact as to insufficient ordered, supplies it on was based deliberate indifference. may nurse’s belief that Suter have still had often, Shirley hypothyroidism, possession. supplies in her Most Small suffers bleeds, attacks, constipation, proper supplies appear nose heart to have been ordered. Start, surgery presented in 1994 to Dr. allergies. She underwent Suter the affidavit of growth tongue and com- had reviewed Dr. remove a her records. Start follow-up diagnosis. questions prison’s received whether medical con- plains she inventory complains adequate is not maintains an her medication tractor She dispensed. pre- supplies properly needed medical em- whether records, responsible inventory ployee that she is sented her which indicate for control regular ordering supplies. basis at the cardiac chronic He states that Su- seen on clinic, suggestion her record supports where staff members review ter’s medical disagreement providing Her over a callous attitude needed medications. toward supplies. expresses her does not raise an medical He no other course of treatment indifference, opinions respect she to professional the ade- inference deliberate any quacy of Suter’s medical treatment and artic- has failed to demonstrate harm delay follow-up diagno- professional no from which alleged receiving a ulates standard his the record indi- sis. he draws conclusion that coronary Shirley history of Allen has a a callous attitude. suggestion of cates artery asserts that on one occa- disease. She opinion is not unsupported Accordingly, his sion, pains, she suffered intense chest but dispute that create a factual sufficient refused to inform the medi- correctional staff reasonably failed to prison officials department. prison rules cal She violated needs, where the med- medical to her serious to the medical center on her own. and went necessary supplies that records indicate ical The nurse informed her that she could properly. ordered generally week, collapsed. and Allen see a doctor for a following the- week. Her She saw the doctor suffers from a cardi Lana Anderson medical records do not evidence this occur- in her blood causing fluctuations ac condition rence, for but indicate extensive treatment took her to a Prison officials once pressure. throughout period her cardiac condition complains pains, she hospital for chest presents no veri- of her incarceration. Allen prison physician calls to the that it took three fying that she suffered medical evidence a transfer to authorization for to obtain prognosis adverse effect on her condition or continued to hospital and that her condition delay seeing physician from the of not indicate that Medical records worsen. collapsed. day allegedly she See Crow- physician determined emergency room 502; Beyerbach, ley, 49 F.3d at 109 F.3d non-cardiac, and she pain chest her 1326. continue her current medi instructed to pain complain of continued to sought cations. She dental care and Patricia Prewitt infirmary diagnostic center sent to a and was medical staff extracted claims that indicate that observation. Records wrong records show that tooth. Medical extraction, she re pressure pre was monitored blood and she two teeth needed occasions. treatment on several opinion ceived own sented no evidence but her deliberate indiffer objective portion of the assuming refute medical record. Even “verify showing true, requires malpractice ence standard her assertion to be the defendants ing medical evidence” indifference does not amount deliberate escalating situation ignored an acute “merely prisoner.” is a because the victim prognosis delays adversely affected the Estelle, at 292. 429 U.S. at 97 S.Ct. injury in case. Crow type of given the presented the affidavit (8th Hedgepeth, 109 F.3d ley v. prison doc- paralegal who reviewed the of a Sears, Cir.1997); Beyerbach v. affidavits, accuracy checking them for tors’ Cir.1995). Her medical needs were paralegal’s In the with the medical records. no disregarded, and she has verifiable the statements in the de- opinion, not all of delay in that the to indicate medical evidence supported expert affidavits are fendants’ adversely hospital transferring to the affida- paralegal’s the medical records.' Crowley, 109 F.3d at prognosis. affected her vit, however, not amount to evidence does with deliberate defendants acted treating plaintiffs. indifference when complains that she has Polly Guidorzi indicates objective medical evidence lumpectomy lumps but received breast reasonably in re- the defendants actéd original malignan- of án rule out recurrence had serious sponse those mastectomy was complains that a cy. She The, simply have medical needs. against and with no performed her wishes any particular case presented evidence-in findings recorded. The defen- pathological treatment, or lack there- indicating “course of presented medical records dants of, from'professional standards so deviated procedure. She that she consented indifference it to deliberate amounted she does not remember merely claims that right [the][E]ighth [A]mendment violation of submits the the consent form and signing punish- and unusual free from cruel he to be who muses that affidavit of Dr. Start Smith, Contrary to F.2d at 93. ment.” informed. This if her consent was doubts assertion, of the our review plaintiffs’ a reason- speculation does not create type of court' did us that the district record convinces indifference. of deliberate able inference 1244 argue merely is credibility plaintiffs that what in this any questions of

not resolve in or individual case negligent one isolated disregard improperly case or when it may evidence deliberate indifference considering the Even expert witnesses. part pattern of a of conduct on whole is plaintiffs opinions, plaintiffs’ experts’ 525, record, Pung, F.2d citing DeGidio v. 920 refuting evidence present to have failed (8th Cir.1990). case, Previously in this 532 give to objective records sufficient DeGidio, distinguished involved a we indifference. an inference of deliberate rise to properly tuberculo- systemic failure to treat the district plaintiffs contend sis, being resulting nearly in 200 inmates by evaluating each court erred prison had during a time when the infected considering individually and not claim administrating supervising or no official determining record when whether prison. entire held in health services for the question fact on the issue existed a officials’ failure to there that the DeGidio services, organize to supervise The district court health of deliberate indifference. treatment, adequately preventive and to offer not consider the affidavits inmates did infection, id. at We, too, to the outbreak plaintiffs. as decline are not named 529-30, pattern of amounted to “a consistent per and claims of to consider the affidavits negligent conduct is suffi- [that] or reckless plaintiffs. listed as Unless sons who are not indifference to cient to establish deliberate plaintiff named can demonstrate at least one Only medical needs.” Id. serious injury in fact stem an actual or imminent case of tuberculosis is asserted one active pris ming indifference of from the deliberate present complaint of the case. Others officials, we have no basis on which on properly tested or now assert were not problems system either wide or consider treated, only offered but their claims were grant system wide relief. See Lew which to summary judgment, preventing resistance 343, -, Casey, is v. 518 U.S. responding to their the defendants from (1996) (“the 2174, 2179, 135 suc L.Ed.2d 606 event, claims. In we considered challenge respondents’ systemic cess of the relating plain- to the named the entire record ability dependent on their to show wide [is] tiffs, presented here does and the situation injury”); v. Arkansas spread actual Smith not rival that of DeGidio. Correction, F.3d 643-44 Dep’t expert records and affida- presented medical Cir.1996) (noting plaintiff must “demon indicating prison’s treatment vits strate, among things, an actual other either adequate. one tuberculosis fact”); injury Alpern see also or imminent conclusory expert does not rebut the affidavit United, F.3d UtiliCorp. v. Inc. 84 sufficiently to create a defendants’ evidence (8th Cir.1996) (“A representative must class the defendants question of fact on whether possess the same part of the class and be injury unreasonably to the have reacted injury as the interest and suffer same harm from its treatment imminent threat of (internal members.”) quotations omit class See Miller v. Citizens Sec. of tuberculosis. ted). remedy not await a While “a need (8th Cir.1997) Inc., Group, event,” Helling McKinney, 509 tragic U.S. (“A affidavit, conclusory statement 2475, 2481, 25, 33, 125 L.Ed.2d 113 S.Ct. however, genuine issue of cannot create a identify (1993), must be able summary judg- precludes material fact which risk from which a known and unreasonable ment.”). health is im damage to their future serious police adequa role is not to In this Our suit. minent in order maintain systems. Supreme cy prison medical case, objective of medical care record defined our role as follows: Court has pris indicates that provided to the steps to reasonable alleviate provide on officials took relief to It is the role of courts to risks, actions, claimants, have nei and the or class the known in individual suffered, imminently nor testi suf- refuted this medical evidence who have will ther harm; fer, it is not the role actions that could actual fied to callous comments or branches, courts, political but.that indifference. indicate deliberate multiple providers government with care institutions of contacts medical shape the comply place only with the laws had fashion as to taken show that the medi- such roles [T]he the Constitution.... two plaintiffs spe- and cal at odds with record was court, briefly partially coincide when a instance, Vicky cific contention. For against relief actual harm that granting complained Williams her blood levels suffered, imminently or that will has been monitored, being regularly were not Pamela suffered, by particular individual or be complained of difficulty getting Williams individuals, the alteration of class of orders prison psychologist see the or a psychiatrist, procedure organization or an institutional complained Anderson Lana .her But the that causes harm.. distinction pressure adequately not monitored. blood is the two be between roles would obliterated instance, In each the district court recounted if, courts, no to invoke intervention multiple provid- contacts with medical care needed, or imminent harm were but actual ers, adequately which the failed to subject being merely the status of to a plaintiffs’ rebut and which contradict governmental that was not or- institution complaints. grant The district court did If managed properly. or ex- ganized [for summary judgment sole basis that the healthy had ample] a inmate who suffered multiple contacts with medical medical deprivation of needed treat- providers plaintiffs’ care on the failure to able claim violation of his ment were any rebut the verified medical evidence with care, right simply to medical constitutional proof of deliberate indifference to their medi- facil- ground on the medical cal needs. inadequate, the essential ities were distinc- judge between and executive would tion D. ADA Claim disappeared: have it would become plaintiffs’ states that complaint function of courts to assure ade- rights un defendants have violated their quate prisons. medical care in are not der ADA because facilities Lewis, at-, 518 U.S. S.Ct. at impaired with mobili accessible to omitted). (citation conclude that the dis- We ty, prisoners provid with disabilities are properly examined claims of trict court proper physical therapy or assistance ed individually inmate to determine each named activities, participate in needed to injury she suffered constitutional whether medically necessary equip are denied indifference to a serious medical deliberate mobility. only plaintiff ment to their aid A number of individual need. isolated specifically complain experiencing these negli- malpractice of medical incidences White, however, problems, was Trenace to deliberate indiffer- gence do amount as moot. appeal whose we have dismissed specific some threat harm ence without remaining plaintiffs do not assert deficiency, system a related wide Accordingly, specific the ADA. claims under present in case. are unable to is not dis the ADA became moot with the issue injured single plaintiff has been find a White, need not missal of Trenace and we imminent with an threat of threatened court’s resolution of address the district negligent policy, by proce- medical harm ADA claims. dure, recklessly offered or omit- or treatment ted the defendants. III. plaintiffs also contend district improperly multiple court concluded having carefully Accordingly, considered personnel precluded a with medical contacts record, arguments we and the indifference, finding citing of deliberate War- judgment court. affirm the the district Fanning, F.2d

ren v. Cir.1991). Contrary to the conten- ARNOLD, Judge, RICHARD S. Chief tion, not draw sim- the district court did dissenting part. concurring part multiple contacts with ple conclusion that join opinion concur I Court’s providers precludes finding reached, respect except result indifference. The court noted that deliberate my opinion, In Shirley Allen. plaintiff genuine issues material fact

case raises by jury. a trial

that deserve Ms. undisputed

It Allen had seri- There is evidence that

ous heart condition. intense occasion when she suffered in- pains, staff refused to

chest correctional department.

form the medical Ms. Allen anyway,

went to the medical center was told week, hot see a doctor for a

that she could fact, In collapsed.

and then she did not see a following week.

doctor until paradigm seems to me a case of delib-

This “[h]er

erate indifference. fact that med- occurrence” [the]

ical records do not evidence affidavit, ante at 1243-

alleged in Ms. Allen’s summary-judgment is not relevant at the

stage. obviously competent testify She is happened respect

as to what own

physical testimony condition. Her is admis- jury. be

sible and could believed

absence of mention of the incident in the may actually

defendants’ medical records cut may plaintiff,

in favor of the because it show up occurrence. defendants covered condition,

If one has a serious heart suffers pains, collapses,

intense chest it seems to reasonably

me that a trier of fact could find withholding physician attention from a

for a amounts to deliberate indifference week

to a serious medical need. reasons, respectfully I

For these dissent

part. LAYES, Appellant,

Ronnie CORPORATION;

MEAD CNA Insurance Plan;

Company; Mead Retirement Mead Programs, Appellees.

Benefit

No. 97-1693. Appeals, States Court of

United

Eighth Circuit. Nov. 1997.

Submitted

Decided Jan.

Case Details

Case Name: Ann Dulany v. Mel Carnahan

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Dec 31, 1997

Citation: 132 F.3d 1234

Docket Number: 96-2427

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.