Opinion ID: 812189
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nurse St. Myer and Nurse Hamilton

Text: In addition to his claim against Dr. Al-Shami, Holloway asserts that his attending nurses made the decision not to administer narcotic pain medication based on a standing rule that narcotics are not allowed in the jail. He contends that by following Dr. Al-Shami’s instructions and not giving him Oxycontin, the nurses acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. In granting summary judgment to the nurses, the district court concluded that the nurses’ deference to Dr. Al-Shami’s medical opinion that non-narcotic pain medication could be substituted for Oxycontin did not amount to deliberate indifference. As a matter of professional conduct, nurses may generally defer to instructions given by physicians, “but that deference may not be blind or unthinking, particularly if it is apparent that the physician’s order will likely harm the patient.” Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 443 (7th Cir. 2010). A nurse may therefore act with deliberate indifference if he or she “ignore[s] obvious risks to an inmate’s health” in following a physician’s orders. Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). Here, Nurse St. Myer and Nurse Hamilton gave Holloway his medication as prescribed by Dr. AlShami at the times they were on duty at the jail. There is no evidence that either nurse should have known from the circumstances that giving Holloway Ibuprofen 24 No. 12-2592 and Extra Strength Tylenol, as prescribed by Dr. Al-Shami, put his health at risk. Moreover, the nurses did not have the authority to prescribe medication on their own. At his deposition, the attorney representing Dr. AlShami and the nurses asked Holloway, “did you ever make a complaint to one of the nurses or say, hey, I need help, and they didn’t respond to you at all?” Dkt. 20 at 38-39. Holloway responded that he once woke up and complained that his heart was racing and felt that he was “kind of shrugged off,” but other than that he “tried to be as nonconfrontational” as he could. Id. In response to a follow-up question asking whether he stayed pretty quiet, he said “[o]h yeah. Completely.” Id. at 39. As noted above, this testimony conflicts with Holloway’s later affidavit and his assertion on appeal that he complained constantly to guards and nurses about how much pain he was experiencing. Holloway cannot create an issue of fact that the nurses should have known about his pain by submitting an affidavit that conflicts with his earlier deposition testimony. See Buckner, 75 F.3d at 292. The only statement related to Holloway’s pain that did not conflict with his earlier deposition testimony was that he laid on the floor while he was detained. Holloway does not explain why his position on the floor should have made it obvious to his attending nurses that not supplying him with Oxycontin created a risk to his health. Dr. Al-Shami did not act with deliberate indifference in deciding not to prescribe Oxycontin, and the nurses did not act with deliberate indifference in No. 12-2592 25 following Dr. Al-Shami’s orders: no evidence suggests that the nurses knew or should have known that Hol- loway’s health was at risk because he was not taking Oxycontin. Nurse St. Myer and Nurse Hamilton are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.