Opinion ID: 4521344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-Extraction Treatment

Text: For the same reasons described above, Gaffney’s allegations of continued pain for the months after the extraction meet the objective test. See Brock, 315 F.3d at 163; Chance, 143 F.3d at 702–03. They also meet the subjective test. Based on Gaffney’s allegations that he complained to Perelmuter of pain in the months after the extraction, a jury could reasonably conclude that Perelmuter was deliberately indifferent to that pain. We have declined to adopt a rule that would “exempt general practitioners from being found deliberately indifferent to a patient’s serious medical needs as long as that general practitioner at some point refers the patient to a specialist, regardless of the extent of contact that general practitioner has with the patient.” Hathaway II, 37 F.3d at 68. We have held instead that a “jury could infer deliberate indifference from the fact that [the doctor] knew the extent of [the plaintiff’s] pain, knew that the course of treatment was largely ineffective, and declined to do anything more to attempt to improve [the plaintiff’s] situation.” Id. Here, the 12 district court correctly noted that Perelmuter saw Gaffney several times after the extraction, attempted to separate the attachment of the cheek and gum, and eventually submitted (seven months after the extraction) a “Utilization Review Committee” (“URC”) request to have a specialist address Gaffney’s continued numbness. Gaffney also asserted, however, that he complained of pain to Perelmuter in the months after the extraction—including by submitting a request form complaining of pain on June 24, 2015 (which he asserted was ignored); by telling Perelmuter that he was experiencing pain during the June 30 visit; by submitting a request form on July 31 complaining that he bled for four hours after that visit (which he asserted was ignored); and by submitting a request form on December 15 complaining of continuing pain. If the jury were to credit these assertions and find that Perelmuter failed to provide Gaffney with any pain relief as a result of these complaints, it could reasonably infer that Perelmuter was consciously disregarding Gaffney’s pain despite having eventually made a URC request that Gaffney see an outside specialist to address the numbness. For the same reasons discussed above, Perelmuter would not be entitled to qualified 13 immunity on this claim. Summary judgment in favor of Perelmuter was improper as to Gaffney’s post-extraction claim. We have reviewed the remainder of Gaffney’s arguments of error and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and REMANDED in part with respect to the Eighth Amendment claims concerning the extraction and post-extraction treatment and AFFIRMED in part with respect to the remaining claims. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 14