This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 4 ). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15
- 2043 Edward David Stahlmann, Appellant,

vs. Minnesota Department of Corrections, et al.,

Respondents, Centurion of Minnesota, et al., Respondents. Filed July 5, 2016 Affirmed Ross , Judge Rice County District Court File No. 66

- CV

- 14

- 2724 Edward David Stahlmann , Faribault, Minnesota (pro se appellant) Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Margaret Jacot, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent s Minnesota Department of Corrections, et al. ) Mark A. Solheim, Anthony J. Novak, Paula Duggan Vraa, Larson King, LLP, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent s Centurion of Minnesota, et al. )
Considered and decided by Ross , Presiding Judge; Johnson , Judge; and Larkin , Judge

.2 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N ROSS , Judge Edward Stahlmann is a prison inmate who uses a catheter to allay a n undiagnosed urine retention condition . The Minnesota Department of Corrections has attempted to treat Stahlmann’s condition with the help of several specialists, but doctors have not determined its cause. Stahlmann sued the department, i ts medical

- services vendor , and their employees, alleging that they were negligent and denied him adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Th e district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Because Stahlmann p resent ed no evidenc e that prison officials or their agents were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, and because Stahlmann waived his negligence claim, we affirm.
FA CTS Edward Stahlmann is a state inmate incarcerated in Faribault. Stahlmann began having difficulty urinating while he was jailed in Hennepin County in 2013 . He was then treated by a urologist at the Hennepin County Medical Center. His doctor conducted t es ts but could not diagnose the cause of Stahlmann’s difficulty. The doctor prescribed him a Foley catheter , which allowed him to manage the condition by continuously empty ing his bladder. The department of corrections transferred him to prison in Faribault in November
2013 . There he continued receiving medical treatment from Centurion of Minnesota, a medical

- s ervices vendor that provides on site inmate care. Stahlmann ’s urinary problem persisted. On several occasions, department of corrections nurses had difficulty re

- inserting his catheter. When this happened, the3

department sent Stahlmann to a hospital to prevent long

- term damage to his bladder or kidneys. He suffered occasional urinary tract infections and was hospitalized after he developed blood in his urine. Three urologists and a neurologist examined Stahlmann

. They could not determine the cause of his condition despite putting Stahlmann through various tests, including a cystoscopy and MRI scans . T he cause of his urine retention condition remains unknown. Stahlmann filed a civil complaint in November 2014 . He alleg es that the department, C enturion, and employees of both w ere negligent and deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amend ments. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court interpreted Stahlmann’s negligence claim as an Eighth Amendment claim against all defendants. It did not address his medical negligence claim. It granted the defendants’ motions and dismi ssed all claims. Stahlmann appeals. D E C I S I O N Stahlmann challenges the dismissal of his Eight h Amendment and negligence claim s . We review summary judgment decisions de novo to determine whether the district court applied the law properly and whether genuine issues of material fact exist. Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Dev. Grp ., LLC , 790 N.W.2d 167, 170 (Minn. 2010). We consider t he evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Fabio v. Bellomo , 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993).
St ahlmann argues that the district court erred by dismis sing his Eighth Amendment claim

. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, U.S. Const.4

amend. V III , and this include s deliberately failing to provide an inmate necessary medical

care. Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 9 7, 104

– 05, 97 S. Ct. 285, 291 (1976)

. To succeed on a n Eighth Amendment c laim based on inadequate medical care , a prisoner must show that he suffered from a serious medical need to which prison officials were deliberately indi fferent. Id. The threshold element requires the prisoner to show o bjective ly that he suffered from an acute or escalating condition or that delays in care adversely affected his prognosis. Dulany v. Carnahan , 132 F.3d 1234, 1243 (8th Cir. 1997). The second element leads to subjective inquiry requiring the prisoner to demonstrate that prison officials actually knew of his medical condition but deliberately disregarded his medical needs. Id. at 1239. It is not enough that a prisoner disagree s with his medical treatment ; he must show d eliberate indifference. Lair v. Oglesby , 859 F.2d 605, 606 (8th Cir. 1988). That is, the medical care received must be “so inappropriate as to evidence intentional mal treatment.” Jolly v. Knudsen , 205 F.3d 1094, 1097 (8th Cir. 200 0) (quotation omitted)

. We can a ssume without deciding that Stahlmann is correct that h is condition constitutes a serious medical need . W e affirm the district court’s dismissal of his Eighth Amendment claim because he has failed to present evidence that the respondents acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The undisputed evidence shows that prison officials and their agents were deliberately responsive, not indifferent, to Stahlmann’s medical needs. They responded to his medical condition and took steps intending to identify and treat the condition. The department engaged four medical specialists who examined Stahlmann with a variety of testing devices and procedures. The department also promptly hospitalized Stahlmann5

whe n catheter problems arose, and his medical care providers issued him a different catheter to reduce the risk of infections and prescribed medic ine to manage his pain. The department’s response to Stahlmann’s medical condition was far from indifferent.
Sta hlmann argues that his doctors should have considered alternative treatments

— treatments that Stahlmann says he discovered in medical journa ls. The argument is unavailing because a prisoner’s mere disagreement with treatment he received does not establish d eliberate indifference. Oglesby , 859 F.2d at 606. Becau se the record shows that prison officials were not i ndifferent to Stahlmann’s urine retention problem

— and indeed , officials went to substantial lengths to determ ine the cause of his condition

— t he distr ict
court did not err by dismissing Stahlmann’s Eight h Amendment claim

. We are unpersuaded by Stahlmann’s argument that the district court erred by not deciding his negligence claim on the merits

. In opposing summary judgment, Stahlmann conced ed that he was “not arguing medical malpractice, medical error, medical mistake, or a failure to cure. ” E ven if he had not waived the claim , it would fail. He did not submit expert affidavits required by Minnesota Statutes section 145.682 , subdivisions 2

– 4 (2014).
Hi s claim that doctors ignored alternative treatments implicates his medical care, whether he calls it negligence or medical malpractice

. Either way, it implicates the expert assessment of the medical judgment of those who treated him. See Broehm v. Mayo Cli nic Rochester , 690 N.W.2d 721, 728 (Minn. 2005). Affirmed.