Opinion ID: 772255
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count I: Fourteenth Amendment-- Deliberate Indifference

Text: 6 The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from deliberate indifference to a serious injury or medical need. See Zentmyer v. Kendall County, 220 F.3d 805, 810 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). This protection is extended to arrested persons and pretrial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. To prevail the detainee must satisfy an objective and a subjective element, namely that: (1) an objectively serious injury or medical need was deprived; and (2) the official knew that the risk of injury was substantial but nevertheless failed to take reasonable measures to prevent it. See Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 845 (7th Cir. 1999). Under the first prong, an objectively serious injury or medical need is 'one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.' Zentmyer, 220 F.3d at 810 (quoting Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997)). The parties do not dispute that Chapman's condition was serious. Under the second prong, it must be shown that the official was aware of the risk and consciously disregarded it nonetheless. Mathis v. Fairman, 120 F.3d 88, 91 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 840-42 (1994)). Neither negligence nor even gross negligence is a sufficient basis for liability; rather, liability attaches only if the conduct is intentional or criminally reckless. See Salazar v. City of Chicago, 940 F.2d 233, 238 (7th Cir. 1991). Deliberate indifference can arise by a failure to provide prompt treatment for serious medical needs or by intentionally interfering with treatment once prescribed. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104- 05. 7 Chapman relies on Martin v. Board of County Comm'rs, 909 F.2d 402 (10th Cir. 1990) to argue that the officers were deliberately indifferent by intentionally interfering with treatment prescribed by her doctor. Chapman contends that her doctor proscribed her from taking stairs, that she told the officers of this proscription, and that they interfered with it by assisting her in doing exactly what her doctor proscribed her from doing. There is no evidence, however, that the doctor totally prohibited Chapman from taking stairs. As the district court noted, the evidence suggests at most, that her physician told her to avoid stairs in general, and to climb stairs one at a time. Indeed, Chapman's own deposition testimony is that the doctor told her that if she took stairs to take them one at a time. Also, the written discharge record only forbade heavy lifting, not stair climbing. The record, therefore, reflects that the doctor's prescribed treatment was not to avoid stairs altogether. Based on the record evidence, we cannot conclude that the officers deliberately disregarded the doctor's prescribed treatment for Chapman by assisting her in stepping into the van. 8 Further, even if the doctor had totally prohibited Chapman from stair climbing, there is no evidence that the officers were aware of this blanket ban. True, Chapman told the police of her doctor's orders when she said, the step is too high, the doctor told me not to take the stairs except one at a time. However, this statement did not convey to the officers that she had to avoid steps altogether. The district court correctly reasoned: 9 The difference between the allegations in Chapman's complaint and the actual evidence is critical on this point. If defendants were informed that a physician instructed Chapman not to climb any stairs, that is a far different matter than if they were informed that a physician told Chapman to take stairs one at a time. Requiring Chapman to climb into the van represents a clear disregard of the former, but only a potentially negligent interpretation of the latter. If defendants knew that Chapman was permitted to climb stairs under limited circumstances, they may have believed that assisting her into the van would be permissible under the physician's instructions. 10 The officers heeded the doctor's directive, precisely as Chapman told them, by requiring Chapman to take only one step. Chapman though makes much of the fact that the step into the van was twice the height of an ordinary stair, arguing that the officers disregarded her doctor's orders by making her essentially take two steps. This is of no matter since the officers heeded Chapman's protestation that the step was too high in assisting her into the van by support ing her weight on each side. 11 We agree with the district court that the officers requiring Chapman to step up so high, even with their assistance, may well constitute some form of negligence, but it does not constitute deliberate indifference. If the officers were aware that Chapman was prohibited from climbing all stairs, disregarded this and required her to step into the van, then perhaps the officers' conduct would constitute deliberate indifference. See Zentmyer, 220 F.3d at 812 (If a defendant consciously chose to disregard a nurse or doctor's directions in the face of medical risks, then he may well have exhibited the necessary deliberate indifference.). However, this was not the case here because the officers did not consciously disregard the doctor's order. 12 The district court also found that the officers were not deliberately indifferent because there is no evidence that the officers knew or reasonably should have known that Chapman's incision had opened. Chapman did not tell the officers and there was no evidence that the officers saw any blood. The court reasoned that the officers could have reasonably believed that her sobbing and shaking were natural responses to being placed under arrest, and not a sign that she needed medical attention. On appeal Chapman does not raise the question of whether the officers were deliberately indifferent after her incision had opened; rather, she focuses solely on the officers requiring her to step into the van. Since her appellate brief does not argue that the officers' failure to get her medical attention violated the Fourteenth Amendment, we do not address the issue. 13