Court Opinion

ID: 9410286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 18:00:47.929469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:56.543745
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                         ___________

                             No. 23-1794
                             ___________

                          JAMIE McVICKER,
                                              Appellant

                                   v.

            DR. RITA COMACHO; DANIEL C. VITTONE
             ____________________________________

            On Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                        (D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00070)
             District Judge: Honorable Stephanie L. Haines
             ____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
  Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                           on July 13, 2023

     Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

                     (Opinion filed: July 20, 2023)
              ____________________________________
                                       ___________

                                        OPINION*
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Jamie McVicker, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals from the District

Court’s judgment in favor of Defendant Rita Comacho in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 1

Since McVicker does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm.

                                              I.

    McVicker alleges that the Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing

to provide him with adequate medical care during his confinement in the Municipal County

Jail of Somerset, Pennsylvania. On June 19, 2017, McVicker began to suffer from blurry

vision, an inability to see out of his left eye, headaches, dizziness, nausea, and an unsteady

gait. His symptoms persisted, and he informed the officers and medical staff at the prison.

He was treated by a nurse and an on-call physician’s assistant, the latter of whom referred

McVicker on June 21, 2017, for an ophthalmology consultation on an urgent basis. On

June 27, 2017, he was evaluated by Dr. Kimberly Riggs at the Formica Optical business in

*
  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
  McVicker also filed a motion for default judgment against Defendant Daniel C. Vittone
in light of his failure to respond to the complaint. An attorney representing Vittone filed a
response to the motion in which he indicated that Vittone had passed away on May 23,
2021, before being named as a defendant in these proceedings. A Magistrate Judge rec-
ommended that the motion be denied. The District Court accepted this recommendation,
and denied the motion. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the District Court
dismiss the claims against Vittone, which the District Court did. This left Comacho as the
only remaining defendant in this proceeding.
                                              2
Somerset. Dr. Riggs diagnosed McVicker with a “swollen disc of the left eye” and alleg-

edly told McVicker at that time that his condition constituted an emergency. Dr. Riggs

referred McVicker to Defendant Daniel C. Vittone, an eye doctor who evaluated McVicker

and confirmed Dr. Riggs’ diagnosis. Vittone identified McVicker’s condition as optic neu-

ritis, and ordered an MRI, which was performed on July 13, 2017. McVicker had a follow-

up appointment with Vittone on July 31, 2017. At that time, Vittone informed McVicker

that the MRI results were negative, and he was prescribed aspirin. McVicker visited Vit-

tone four more times over the next year, and the health of his left eye improved over this

period from 20/200 to 20/140.

       On August 9, 2017, Defendant Rita Comacho, a doctor who served as a medical

provider for the Somerset County Jail, evaluated McVicker. Noting that he was under the

care of an ophthalmologist, she continued the course of care already underway. On August

30, 2017, Comacho examined McVicker, and ordered a rheumatology consultation.

Shortly thereafter, McVicker met with Dr. Alan Kivitz to discuss his medical history and

the possibility of an autoimmune disease; the tests in this area came back negative.

McVicker had four follow-up appointments with Comacho over the next year. On August

1, 2018, McVicker was transferred to State Correctional Institution (“SCI”) Greene, and

on August 11, 2018, he was evaluated by a certified registered nurse practitioner (“CRNP”)

at SCI Camphill. He was subsequently evaluated by medical professionals at SCI Houtz-

dale and in State College, Pennsylvania. On February 15, 2019, McVicker was diagnosed

with diffuse retinal atrophy.

                                            3
       McVicker makes the following claims against Comacho and Vittone alleging delib-

erate indifference to his health and safety:

       1. Comacho failed to provide McVicker with adequate medical care from June

          19, 2017, to June 26, 2017, and refused to send McVicker to be evaluated by

          other healthcare professionals;

       2. Comacho refused to provide medical care during the operation of sick call on

          June 21, 2017;

       3. Comacho refused to provide McVicker with oncological care, follow-up visits

          with his oncologist, or a pet scan;

       4. Comacho refused to follow the recommendations of Dr. Allen Kivitz, a spe-

          cialist in rheumatology;

       5. Comacho and Vittone failed to diagnose the underlying cause of McVicker’s

          medical condition;

       6. Comacho refused to provide McVicker with a neurology consultation visit and

          a test for multiple sclerosis because of the costs associated with the course of

          treatment;

       7. Comacho and Vittone continued an ineffective course of treatment; and

       8. Comacho refused to provide McVicker’s medical records to the medical de-

          partment at SCI Houtzdale.

       McVicker and Comacho filed separate motions for summary judgment. A Magis-

trate Judge issued a report and recommended denying McVicker’s motion and granting

                                                4
Comacho’s motion. The District Court overruled McVicker’s objections, granted Co-

macho’s motion, and denied McVicker’s. This appeal followed.

                                            II.

       We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review

with respect to the grant of summary judgment. See Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.,

767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014).

       We must dismiss this appeal if we conclude that it is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s order if we conclude

that McVicker has not presented a substantial question or that subsequent precedent or a

change in circumstances warrants such action. See 3d Cir. LAR 27. 4 and IOP 10.6.

       To state a claim under § 1983 that prison medical care violated his Eighth Amend-

ment rights, a prisoner must point to “(i) a serious medical need and (ii) acts or omissions

by prison officials that indicate deliberate indifference to that need.” Parkell v. Danberg,

833 F.3d 313, 337 (3d Cir. 2016). Inadequate care stemming from errors in medical judg-

ment is not actionable under the Eighth Amendment. Id. “Where a prisoner has received

some amount of medical treatment, it is difficult to establish deliberate indifference, be-

cause prison officials are afforded considerable latitude in the diagnosis and treatment of

prisoners.” Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 227 (3d Cir. 2017). There is a “well-

established rule that mere disagreements over medical judgment do not state Eighth

Amendment claims.” White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 110 (3d Cir. 1990).

                                            III.

                                             5
       We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that McVicker failed to provide evi-

dence demonstrating that Comacho was deliberately indifferent to this serious medical

need. McVicker failed to show that Comacho had personal involvement or knowledge of

his condition between June 19, 2017, and June 26, 2017, which is the relevant period for

his first two claims against her. Similarly, there is no evidence of deliberate indifference

with respect to McVicker’s prior medical history of cancer because treatment for this ail-

ment had halted over a year before the events related to this case, his cancer did not reoccur,

Comacho was not on notice of any need for continued monitoring in this regard, and there

was no evidence of harm that occurred as a result of this lack of treatment.

       McVicker’s other claims are also unavailing. He argues that his Eighth Amendment

claim is warranted because Comacho’s treatment was ineffective, but effectiveness is not

the standard for this cause of action. Rather, he needed to show deliberate indifference,

and as the District Court explained, he failed to do so. His arguments regarding an inability

to access consultation and treatment from other medical professionals are belied by the

record showing that he received such care, as well as care from Comacho and Vittone

themselves. McVicker’s claims amount to a mere disagreement about medical judgment,

and that is insufficient to fend off a summary judgment challenge. See White, 897 F.2d at

110. Finally, McVicker fails to provide any evidence that Comacho refused to provide him

with his medical records, that any delay in providing medical records stemmed from a

                                              6
deliberate indifference on Comacho’s part, or that any delay resulted in harm to McVicker

or interfered with his medical treatment after his departure from Somerset County Jail.2

    For the reasons stated above, we conclude that McVicker has not presented a substantial

question and thus will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.

2
  The reasoning presented above also supports the District Court’s decision to deny
McVicker’s motion for summary judgment. Additionally, since McVicker’s claims are
meritless, there is no need to address the District Court’s determination that most of his
claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
                                             7