Opinion ID: 4521344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Choice to Extract 1

Text: Summary judgment in favor of Perelmuter was proper as to this challenge, although on grounds not relied upon by the district court. 2 See Leon v. Murphy, 1Perelmuter is incorrect to assert that Gaffney abandoned this claim on appeal; in his brief, Gaffney clearly challenges the decision to extract. 2 The district court ruled that any challenge to the decision to extract the tooth was improper because the complaint did not raise any allegations concerning that decision. This ruling is incorrect. Although the text of the complaint did not specifically challenge Perelmuter’s decision to extract, the attachments to the complaint included request forms in which Gaffney questioned whether extraction was necessary. These forms were integral to Gaffney’s claims, because they showed the extent of his pain and his attempts to seek treatment. Because these forms were part of the complaint, Perelmuter had notice of the claims raised in them. See Sierra Club v. Con-Strux, LLC, 911 F.3d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 2018) (“A complaint is also deemed to include any written instrument attached to it 5 988 F.2d 303, 308 (2d Cir. 1993) (stating that this Court “may affirm . . . on any basis for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, including grounds upon which the district court did not rely”). In Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (2d Cir. 1998), we ruled that an allegation that defendants “recommended extraction not on the basis of their medical views, but because of monetary incentives,” constituted deliberate indifference. Id. at 704. Here, although the evidence is conflicting, there is some evidence that Perelmuter chose extraction because of Connecticut Department of Correction (“DOC”) policy, even though crowns might have been the more appropriate treatment. See id. at 703 (“In certain instances, a physician may be deliberately indifferent if he or she consciously chooses an easier and less efficacious treatment plan.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Gaffney, however, never alleged that the DOC policy was unconstitutional, that the policy was based on monetary or other improper incentives, or that Perelmuter’s decision to extract was based on monetary incentives or a belief that extraction was easier. Instead, Gaffney argues only that as an exhibit, materials incorporated in it by reference, and documents that, although not incorporated by reference, are integral to the complaint.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 6 the decision was incorrect (without alleging any facts about Perelmuter’s motive), and that other dentists determined that extraction was unnecessary. See id. (“It is well-established that mere disagreement over the proper treatment does not create a constitutional claim.”). Gaffney thus fails to show that Perelmuter’s decision to extract the tooth constituted deliberate indifference. Summary judgment was proper as to this claim.