Opinion ID: 1233666
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lieutenant McMurrian

Text: Intentional delay in providing medical treatment shows deliberate disregard if a reasonable person would know that the inmate requires medical attention or the actions of the officers are so dangerous that a knowledge of the risk may be presumed. Gordon ex rel. Gordon v. Frank, 454 F.3d 858, 862 (8th Cir.2006). In Gordon, this court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity when an officer was aware of the inmate's medical issues, knew the inmate had complained of breathing trouble and chest pain, but waited for other officers to ask him to initiate medical treatment. Id. at 862-63. McMurrian initially wanted McFarland hospitalized, but changed her mind after receiving Nurse Harmon's recommendation that hospitalization was unnecessary. McRaven asserts that Harmon, a practical nurse, is unqualified as a matter of law to determine whether or not McFarland should have been hospitalized, since Harmon was not supervised by a more senior medical professional. [3] This court need not decide that issue. Instead, the question is whether McMurrian and the other defendant-officers reasonably relied on Harmon's medical opinion, whether or not Harmon should have provided a medical opinion without supervision. A prison official may rely on a medical professional's opinion if such reliance is reasonable. Meloy v. Bachmeier 302 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir.2002) (The law does not clearly require an administrator with less medical training to second-guess or disregard a treating physician's treatment decision.); see also Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1010 (7th Cir. 2006) (Except in the unusual case where it would be evident to a layperson that a prisoner is receiving inadequate or inappropriate treatment, prison officials may reasonably rely on the judgment of medical professionals.) (citation omitted). Here, McMurrian could not reasonably rely on Harmon's medical opinion, for three reasons. First, McMurrian was aware of the cocktail of potent drugs McFarland had consumed, and that circumstances strongly suggested McFarland did not consume the drugs in prescribed dosages. See, e.g., Spann v. Roper, 453 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.2006) (even a lay person would know that taking a large dose of mental-health medication prescribed for another person is potentially dangerous). Second, McMurrian was aware that McFarland exhibited symptoms of extreme intoxication. The drug influence evaluation describes a clearly impaired person, which should have alerted McMurrian to McFarland's medical need. Third, McMurrian knew, or reasonably should have known, that Harmon based his medical assessment on the faulty assumption that McFarland was under the influence of alcohol, not drugs. Given McMurrian's knowledge of the drugs McFarland consumed and his physical statefacts that should have triggered special concernit was unreasonable to rely on a medical assessment grounded on incorrect information. In combination, these three facts preclude qualified immunity. This situation differs from the case relied on by defendants, Grayson v. Ross, 454 F.3d 802 (8th Cir.2006). There, the intake officer was aware that the detainee was likely under the influence of methamphetamine, but did not know the amount of the methamphetamine taken or the time it was taken. Id. at 810. Nor could he readily determine the degree of the detainee's intoxication. Id. Here, by contrast, the intake officers knew the cocktail of drugs taken by McFarland, and the drug intoxication evaluation showed a severely intoxicated detainee. Like the Gordon officer, McMurrian was aware of McFarland's medical issues, knew he appeared medically distressed, and declined have him hospitalized. See Gordon, 454 F.3d at 862-63; see also Vaughn, 557 F.3d at 909 n. 5 (an officer's knowledge of a prisoner's serious medical need may be inferred when a risk is so obvious that a reasonable person would recognize it), citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The district court did not err by denying McMurrian qualified immunity.