Opinion ID: 2745400
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Easley’s Evidence of Deliberate Indifference

Text: Easley’s evidence does create factual issues about whether he actually received epidural injections for his back pain, but his evidence does not create a 18 Case: 13-14257 Date Filed: 10/24/2014 Page: 19 of 21 factual issue as to deliberate indifference to his multiple medical needs that would preclude summary judgment. We explain why. The undisputed evidence shows that, throughout his time at DCI, Easley received continuous and extensive medication and medical treatment. The DCI Healthcare Providers employed a variety of approaches to ensure that Easley’s diabetes and hypertension remained under control and that Easley’s back pain was effectively managed. They regularly adjusted his treatment to compensate for the unavailability (or, in the case of surgery, Easley’s refusal) of other treatment options. Certain treatment options desired by Easley were never within the authority of the DCI Healthcare Providers at the facility, but rather subject to authorization by Utilization Management in Tallahassee or limited by Department of Corrections policies. Other treatment options, like Easley’s orthotic shoes, were made available initially, but not renewed on Easley’s demand. Even if the unavailability of new shoes annually were imputed entirely to the defendants, it would be, at most, negligence rather than deliberate indifference. At the heart of this complaint is Easley’s access to prescription pain medication, the narcotic Ultram. The availability of Ultram cuts across Easley’s claims against the DCI Healthcare Providers and the DCI Officers. Given the evidence of the standard medical dosing for this narcotic, the heightened concern about “cheeking” for safety in the prison environment, and the multiple medicines 19 Case: 13-14257 Date Filed: 10/24/2014 Page: 20 of 21 Easley received, the steps taken to dispense Easley’s Ultram simply do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference on the part of the DCI Healthcare Providers. While Easley strongly disagrees with his Healthcare Providers as to his treatment, this does not entitle him to relief under § 1983. See Harris, 941 F.2d at 1505; Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1575. Finally, there is no evidence that the DCI Officers, who allegedly denied Easley access to the medical unit, had any awareness of a risk of serious harm to Easley if they did not let him pass at a particular time to obtain Ultram. Rather, the evidence shows that the DCI Officers, like the DCI Healthcare Providers, were constrained by institutional controls and did not bend those controls in response to Easley’s demands for pain medication on his own terms and schedule.