Opinion ID: 172365
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Parker’s Arguments on Appeal.

Text: In his opening brief, Mr. Parker has asserted the following allegations in support of his claim that defendants provided deficient medical care to him in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment: In the case at bar, appellant desired to file a second amended complaint to allege “more particularized facts.” Particularly, appellant wanted to remove allegations of the first amended complaint that referenced Defendants’ failure to perform other less invasive tests as error. . . . Appellant’s rephrased claim was that the Defendants failed to treat a serious medical condition (appellant’s right thyroid mass) properly. This was in accordance with this Court’s recognition that a medical professional’s failure to treat a serious medical condition properly constitutes deliberate indifference. . . . Moreover, the rephrased facts clearly would entitle appellant to prevail on his Eighth Amendment claim where the allegations are evidence that the Defendants responded to an obvious risk with treatment that was patently unreasonable. . . . .... 1 According to an affidavit signed by Dr. Medina, Mr. Parker’s “right thyroid gland” was surgically removed in order to remove the vascular mass. See R., Doc. 70, Ex. 2 at 1, ¶ 3. This procedure is called a “right thyroid lobectomy.” Id. at 2, ¶ 8. -3- [T]he disputed facts in this case, as rephrased, showed that Defendants[] failed to provide a course of treatment consistent with the symptoms they recognized. .... Because the results of the needle biopsy and thyroid scans were equivocal, the proper treatment for the symptoms recognized was the administration of thyroid hormone to observe whether the thyroid mass shrinks over the ensuing 6 to 12 months. .... In the case at bar, the undisputed facts showed that the Defendants ordered treatment (surgical removal of appellant’s thyroid mass) [that was] inconsistent with the symptoms presented (equivocal test results). . . . The requisite state of mind was met here because the Defendants did not provide a level of care consistent with the symptoms presented by the appellant. .... As shown above, if appellant proved through the testimony of [an] expert witness that a different course of treatment was not merely available, but was the treatment under prevailing professional norms for appellant’s symptoms, the evidence would establish deliberate indifference by the Defendants to appellant’s serious medical condition. Aplt. Opening Br. at 3, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3g. As set forth below, we have concluded that these allegations are frivolous because they lack an arguable basis in law and fact under the controlling Eighth Amendment standards for prison medical care. As a result, we must deny -4- Mr. Parker’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees, and this appeal must be dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).