Opinion ID: 2562586
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hertz's decayed tooth

Text: We also affirm the superior court's grant of summary judgment on Hertz's deliberate indifference claim arising from his tooth: even assuming that Hertz suffered pain from the cavity in his tooth and that the pain was serious enough to implicate the Eighth Amendment, the evidence does not show the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his condition. For deliberate indifference, the prison official must not only `be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,' but that person `must also draw the inference.' [22] [D]eliberate indifference to medical needs may be shown by circumstantial evidence when the facts are sufficient to demonstrate that a defendant actually knew of a risk of harm. [23] When the facts do not demonstrate that the defendants had this knowledge, however, a deliberate indifference claim must fail. [24] Hertz first complained of the cavity in a medical request dated April 2, 2006, in which he stated the cavity caused him pain when brushing. Dr. Anderson examined the cavity on April 8; he described it as small and non-acute and deemed it a low priority . . . requir[ing] only `routine dental treatment.' Hertz submitted another request for treatment the next day, complaining that nothing has been done about my cavity, to which Beach responded that his name had been placed on the dental list. According to a grievance filed by Hertz on July 26, 2006, his tooth began causing him excruciating pain on July 8 and the pain subsided with the use of pain relievers by July 16. His medical chart indicates he complained to Beach of pain in his tooth on July 10, and a DOC receipt indicates he received ibuprofen and a topical pain reliever that same day. Hertz was referred to Dr. Logan (an outside dentist) on July 26, and Dr. Logan extracted the tooth on July 27. The evidence does not establish deliberate indifference by Beach or Hawkins because there is no indication they knew of but did not respond to Hertz's alleged severe pain. The evidence indicates that Hertz's decayed tooth was not serious when Dr. Anderson examined it on April 8; only when it allegedly began causing him great pain on July 8 did the tooth arguably become a serious condition. [25] But when he complained of the pain to Beach on July 10, Beach immediately notified the doctor on staff (not Dr. Anderson), and Hertz received pain relievers. Hertz does not assert by affidavit that he told Beach or Hawkins his severe pain continued after July 10, nor does he refer to any other evidence implying that Beach or Hawkins knew that it did. There is thus no evidence that Beach or Hawkins ever denied or delayed treatment. Hertz's medical chart indicates that Hawkins took his blood pressure and heart rate on July 16, but it makes no mention of tooth pain. Hertz himself admits that the pain subsided by July 16. Beach and Hawkins cannot be considered deliberately indifferent when, to the best of their knowledge, medications had relieved Hertz's pain. [26] There is also no evidence in the record that Anderson knew about the pain Hertz began experiencing on July 8. Had Anderson been aware that Hertz had complained to Beach about pain from his decayed tooth, he would have known only that Hertz had received pain medications and had not complained again. Without knowledge that Hertz was suffering from a serious medical need, Anderson could not have been deliberately indifferent.