Opinion ID: 3045528
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Medical Neglect

Text: In addition, Heffran’s medical neglect claim does not survive summary judgment because he has not presented evidence of deliberate indifference on the part of either Mellinger or Sokolski. As in Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004), our analysis differs with respect to medical (Sokolski) and non-medical (Mellinger) prison officials. We will first discuss the medical neglect claim as advanced against Sokolski. As a preliminary matter, “prison authorities are accorded considerable latitude in the diagnosis and treatment of prisoners.” Durmer v. O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 67 (3d Cir. 1993). After his first bout of vomiting, Heffran was seen by nurse Sokolski in the prison infirmary. Sokolski observed Heffran’s physical and mental status, and tested his blood’s 6 oxygen saturation levels using a pulse-oximeter. According to Sokolski, Heffran’s condition appeared quite stable; the vomiting had subsided prior to Heffran’s being brought to the infirmary, and he had no difficulty breathing, confusion, discoloration or anything else that would indicate a condition requiring immediate medical attention. Given these facts, Sokolski’s decision to forgo emergency care and have Heffran wait two days to see a doctor was reasonable. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 845. With respect to Mellinger, the evidence shows that after Heffran first got sick, Mellinger brought him to the prison infirmary. After that, Heffran was in Sokolski’s hands, and, as just explained, Sokolski’s treatment of Heffran was reasonable. Similarly, after the second episode of vomiting, on April 30, 2004, Mellinger called the prison infirmary, and had Heffran sign up to see a doctor. Mellinger also made sure that when Heffran returned to work, he was not assigned to the rubbermill room. That said, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Mellinger knew or had reason to believe that Sokolski’s, or any other medical staff member’s, treatment of Heffran was improper or even sub-par. See Spruill, 372 F.3d at 236 (“absent a reason to believe (or actual knowledge) that prison doctors or their assistants are mistreating (or not treating) a prisoner, a non-medical prison official . . . will not be chargeable with the Eighth Amendment scienter requirement of deliberate indifference”). Therefore, because Heffran has not presented evidence of deliberate indifference with respect to his medical needs, it was proper for the District Court to enter summary 7 judgment against Heffran on his Eighth Amendment medical neglect claim.