Opinion ID: 3045528
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unsafe Working Conditions

Text: With respect to Heffran’s claim that he was subjected to unsafe working conditions in the rubbermill room, the record reveals an absence of evidence showing deliberate indifference on the part of appellees to the presumably hazardous work environment. Specifically, Heffran and other inmates working in the rubbermill room were issued and instructed to wear hooded protective jump suits, goggles, face masks, and insulated gloves. They were also trained in the use of the rubbermill and the rubbermaking process by the private company that had installed Process 82. When Heffran complained that his face mask provided insufficient protection, reasonable steps were taken to acquire an upgrade: 1) on February 27, 2004, Heffran completed the required medical questionnaire form; 2) on March 26, 2004, Heffran was examined and approved by a resident physician for a respirator (an upgrade from the face mask); 3) on April 27, 2004, Heffran and other inmates were fitted for the respirators; and 4) shortly thereafter, the inmate workers received respirators for use in the rubbermill room. Throughout, issues related to the dust build-up in the rubbermill room were discussed by Atkinson, Arasin and Caracappa, all of whom were active in trying to ameliorate the problem with the ventilation system. Furthermore, it is uncontested that 5 prison mechanical and electrical staff attempted to repair the rubbermill room ventilation system on more than one occasion, and that on May 4, 2004, new filter hoses and dust collection bags arrived for the system. True, many of the remedial actions described did not bear fruit until after Heffran had been transferred from the rubbermill room. But while the speed at which appellees took corrective measures was, according to Heffran, less than desirable, it cannot be characterized as “disregard” for the situation. As the District Court found, the record at best demonstrates negligence, which is insufficient for Eighth Amendment purposes. Id. at 835. Therefore, it was proper for the District Court to enter summary judgment against Heffran on his Eighth Amendment unsafe working conditions claim.