Opinion ID: 2516031
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the civil rights claims

Text: [¶ 16] 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Cum.Supp.2001) provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ..., subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.... [¶ 17] This statute creates a federal cause of action for damages to vindicate violations of federal law committed by persons acting under color of state law. Jojola v. Chavez, 55 F.3d 488, 492 (10th Cir.1995). To establish a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States; and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. D.T. by M.T. v. Independent School Dist. No. 16 of Pawnee County, Okl., 894 F.2d 1176, 1186 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 879, 111 S.Ct. 213, 112 L.Ed.2d 172 (1990). [5] [¶ 18] Specifically, Garnett claims that Dr. Coyle violated his right under the Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. A prisoner's treatment and the conditions of imprisonment are subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2480, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). In that regard, `deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners' violates the [Eighth] Amendment because it constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain contrary to contemporary standards of decency. Helling, 509 U.S. at 32, 113 S.Ct. 2475 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 974, 98 S.Ct. 530, 54 L.Ed.2d 465 (1977)). It follows that a plaintiff must show both deliberate indifference and serious medical needs. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285. The first test is subjective, the second objective. Handy v. Price, 996 F.2d 1064, 1067 (10th Cir.1993) (quoting Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1569 (10th Cir.1991)). [¶ 19] A showing of negligence, indeed even gross negligence, does not amount to a showing of deliberate indifference. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285; Archie v. City of Racine, 847 F.2d 1211, 1219 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1065, 109 S.Ct. 1338, 103 L.Ed.2d 809 (1989). The plaintiff must show that the defendant knew of a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff and still refused medical assistance. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). [The test for deliberate indifference] affords considerable latitude to prison medical authorities in the diagnosis and treatment of medical problems of inmate patients. Courts will `disavow any attempt to second-guess the propriety or adequacy of a particular course of treatment... [which] remains a question of sound professional judgment.' Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 48 (4th Cir.1977). Implicit in this deference to prison medical authorities is the assumption that such an informed medical judgment has, in fact, been made. When, however, prison authorities prevent an inmate from receiving recommended treatment for serious medical needs or deny access to a physician capable of evaluating the need for such treatment, the constitutional standard of Estelle has been violated. Gomm v. DeLand, 729 F.Supp. 767, 779 (D.Utah 1990), aff'd, 931 F.2d 62, 1991 WL 59954 (10th Cir.1991) (quoting Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 762 (3rd Cir.1979)). [¶ 20] To state a prima facie case of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must show inaction that is equivalent to intentional or criminally reckless misconduct. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285. A difference of opinion over medical treatment, or a refusal to provide requested treatment does not, without more, show deliberate indifference. Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197, 1202-04 (10th Cir.1996); Handy, 996 F.2d at 1067. Where some medical attention has been afforded, a dispute over the adequacy of the treatment sounds, at most, in state tort law, and is not of constitutional magnitude. Gomm, 729 F.Supp. at 780. [¶ 21] In addition to deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must also show that such indifference was directed to a serious medical need. `Because society does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access to health care, deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation only if those needs are serious. ....' Riddle, 83 F.3d at 1204 (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995, 1000, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992)). Serious medical needs are those diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or those that are so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention. Riddle, 83 F.3d at 1202 (quoting Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 575 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041, 101 S.Ct. 1759, 68 L.Ed.2d 239 (1981)). [¶ 22] The totality of the evidence contained in the summary judgment materials in the instant case reveals that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that Dr. Coyle is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Eighth Amendment claim. The affidavits and medical records clearly show a successful course of treatment afforded to Garnett. At most, Garnett's materials show only some delay in having the surgery, coupled with relatively minor post-surgical treatment complications. Most of the delay between Garnett's visit with Dr. Coyle on July 14, 1999, and the surgery on September 7, 1999, was occasioned by the fact that Dr. Coyle wanted to pursue a less aggressive treatment plan until he was sure that CTS was the problem and that surgery was warranted. Garnett had been complaining of left arm and wrist pain for three years. Ironically, within five months of Dr. Coyle's appearance on the scene, surgery had been performed. [¶ 23] Once a prima facie case of appropriate medical treatment was shown, the burden shifted to Garnett to establish both prongs of the Eighth Amendment test: deliberate indifference and serious medical needs. Neither was shown. From the evidence, it may be inferred that Dr. Coyle did not always give his immediate and full attention to Garnett's complaints. But there is no evidence of the level of culpability required to sustain such a claim. Further, the record reveals that Garnett's treatment was at least as good as that available to non-inmates. His post-surgical attention, in particular, exceeded the norm in that it lasted longer and involved more pain medication than would usually follow CTS release. Dr. Coyle's less-than-enthusiastic responses to Garnett's demands do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to Garnett's condition for Eighth Amendment purposes. And the expert opinions contained in Dr. Coyle's and Dr. Ruttle's affidavits make it clear that no serious medical needs of Garnett were ignored. In fact, the incentive spirometer was unnecessary, since Garnett was immediately ambulatory, the antibiotic was contra-indicated, since routine antibiotic administration can lead to its ineffectiveness, and Darvocet is preferred over Percocet because it is less addictive.