Opinion ID: 6496694
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deliberate Indifference to Serious Need

Text: Assuming for the purposes of argument that Hancock’s hernia constituted a serious medical need, we conclude that he has not demonstrated that the jail officials acted with deliberate indifference merely because they did not provide him with hernia repair surgery. At issue is whether jail officials “disregarded a known risk to [Hancock’s] health.” See Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 965 (8th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This “requires a mental state ‘akin to criminal recklessness.’” Jackson, 756 F.3d at 1065 (quoting Scott v. Benson, 742 F.3d 335, 340 (8th Cir. 2014)). “Grossly incompetent or inadequate care can constitute deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment where the treatment is so inappropriate as to evidence intentional maltreatment or a refusal to provide essential care.” Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1240–41 (8th Cir. 1997). Hancock alleges that Greene County had a policy of requiring inmates with serious medical needs to prepay for all care from an outside provider. He further alleges that he was denied hernia repair surgery because of this policy and argues that -8- the “issue here is whether Defendants’ failure to provide [Hancock’s] hernia surgery solely because of his inability to pre-pay constitutes deliberate indifference,” not “whether the care provided to Hancock after it was determined that he had a serious medical need was adequate.” This misunderstands our analysis. When there is evidence “that the care provided was adequate, an inmate cannot create a question of fact by merely stating that she did not feel she received adequate treatment.” Dulany, 132 F.3d at 1240. A prison doctor is not liable merely because he did not implement the inmate’s preferred treatment. See id. (“[A]n inmate is not entitled to any particular course of treatment.”). Hancock was seen by the jail physician or nurses more than thirty times and made only intermittent complaints related to his hernia. Despite Hancock’s subjective reports of pain, objective observations did not indicate that he was in severe pain or forced to limit his activities. We conclude that Hancock has not demonstrated that jail officials disregarded a known risk to his health. The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -9-