Opinion ID: 520690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Smith

Text: 17 The facts involving Dr. Smith's course of treatment are also undisputed. Smith is a staff physician at the GDCC. He is not a psychiatrist. Smith saw Waldrop four times while Waldrop was at the GDCC. The first time was on October 22, 1984, four days after Fodor stopped Waldrop's drug treatments. Smith saw Waldrop because Waldrop had complained of nausea, nightmares, and insomnia. Smith made a notation in Waldrop's medical file and recommended that Fodor, who was a trained psychiatrist, examine Waldrop. 18 Fodor interviewed Waldrop on October 27, but did not place Waldrop back on his medication. On November 1, 1984, Smith treated Waldrop for a self-inflicted laceration of the left forearm. This incident occurred approximately two weeks after Dr. Fodor had taken Waldrop off his medication. Smith sutured the wound, but did not notify Dr. Fodor. Smith asserted that he felt the laceration was an attention-getting act and not serious enough to merit special treatment. The district court characterized the laceration as a suicide attempt. 19 Three days later, Waldrop gouged out his left eye. On November 5, Smith performed emergency surgery on Waldrop's left eye. Smith then sent Waldrop to the county hospital for further treatment. Upon Waldrop's return to the GDCC, Smith started Waldrop on Haldol and Cogentin, drugs used to control psychiatric problems. Smith followed the orders and recommendation of Fodor and another psychiatrist at the GDCC in restarting drug treatments without Lithium. 20 Plaintiffs' main argument is that Smith should have taken some action in response to Waldrop's psychiatric problems after Waldrop slashed his forearm. Smith responded to Waldrop's physical injury by suturing the wound, but took no action regarding his mental condition. As evidenced by the October 22 incident and his notation that Fodor treat Waldrop, Smith knew about Waldrop's psychiatric needs. Smith also knew or should have known that Fodor's decision to take Waldrop off medication increased the risk of a psychiatric breakdown. Given that knowledge, petitioners argue Smith should have taken some action in response to Waldrop's psychiatric needs after Waldrop slashed his own arm. 21 This case is like Ancata and Carswell in that plaintiffs are challenging the lack of response to a known medical condition. In this case, Smith treated Waldrop for a self-inflicted injury when he knew Waldrop was suffering from severe psychiatric problems. Smith was not a psychiatrist and was therefore unable to evaluate the significance of this act. Nevertheless, Smith failed to notify Fodor or take any other action in response because he felt this was simply an act to attract attention. 22 The law was clear in 1984 that prison officials have an obligation to take action or to inform competent authorities once the officials have knowledge of a prisoner's need for medical or psychiatric care. See, e.g., Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05, 97 S.Ct. at 291. Courts have held that failure to notify competent officials of an inmate's dangerous psychiatric state can constitute deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Colburn v. Upper Darby Township, 838 F.2d 663, 667-68 (3rd Cir.1988); Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of Houston, 791 F.2d 1182, 1186-87 (5th Cir.1986). In this case, Smith took no action. He may honestly have believed that the laceration was done solely to attract attention, and was not indicative of deeper psychiatric problems. But at least since Anderson v. Creighton, subjective good faith does not create qualified immunity in these circumstances. The test is objective: whether a reasonable physician in Dr. Smith's position would have realized that he had a duty to take some action in response to Waldrop's psychiatric problems after Waldrop lacerated his own arm. There remains a disputed issue of material fact about whether Smith's failure to notify anyone of Waldrop's initial act of self-mutilation constitutes deliberate indifference to Waldrop's psychiatric needs. Consequently, we affirm the district court's denial of Smith's motion for summary judgment.