Opinion ID: 778366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dental Health Services

Text: 65 After reviewing prisoners' dental records, testimony concerning patient care, and the reports of dental experts, the district court found that Plaintiffs' concerns regarding the quality of dental services provided at [the Prison] do not appear to be substantiated by the record. The court concluded that, therefore, Plaintiffs have not shown that the dental services provided at [the Prison] constitute a current and ongoing violation of their constitutional rights. In fact, the court opined that dental services at the Prison were acceptable even under the usual standard of care in nonprison settings: [P]laintiffs have failed to carry their burden to show that the dental services provided by the dental clinic, and Dr. Weaver in particular, fell below minimum standards of acceptable professional practice. 66 Plaintiffs have three principal complaints with respect to dental care at the Prison. First, they claim that Dr. Weaver, one of the prison dentists, insists on extracting teeth rather than repairing them. Second, Plaintiffs complain that prisoners face long delays in dental treatment, up to five and one-half months for dentures and six weeks for dental care. Finally, they object to Defendants' blanket exclusion of pro-phylactic dental care. The district court's findings rejecting each of these contentions are supported by the record. 67 First, with respect to Plaintiffs' criticism of Dr. Weaver, the court found that the dental clinic is organized around Dr. Weaver performing extractions and restorations, with the contract dentists performing other routine dental work. In other words, Dr. Weaver performed many extractions because of a division of labor among the prison dentists. Moreover, the district court found that, although Dr. Weaver performs a large number of extractions, patients are advised of the option of root canals on salvageable teeth. The reports and testimony in the record support the district court's findings. 4 68 In response to Plaintiffs' second major complaint, the court found that prisoners had access to dental care after a wait of only three weeks for a hygienist and six weeks for a dentist. In addition, it found that emergencies were treated the same day or the next day. Finally, the court found that the wait for dentures was about four months. Those findings are supported by the record. However, even if the district court's findings on delay were clearly erroneous, Plaintiffs could not prove an Eighth Amendment violation because they have not demonstrated that delays occurred to patients with problems so severe that delays would cause significant harm and that Defendants should have known this to be the case: [D]elay in providing a prisoner with dental treatment, standing alone, does not constitute an eighth amendment violation. Hunt, 865 F.2d at 200. 69 Finally, the district court found that, although Defendants do not provide routine teeth cleaning, Prison dentists may refer a patient for prophylactic treatment (cleaning and/or scaling) in his or her discretion, and the number of visits with the hygienist is not limited. Further, the court found that Dr. Weaver refers patients to a hygienist if their periodontal disease requires it and that [t]his approach appears to be consistent with the Standards for Health Services in Prisons, published by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care in 1997. The court's findings are supported by the record. In the face of those findings, Plaintiffs cannot establish that the lack of routine teeth cleaning constitutes deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104, 97 S.Ct. 285. 70