Court Opinion

ID: 2963649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:29.595014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:44.318577
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          September 26, 1995 
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________

          No.  94-2062

                                  BERNARDO FIGUEROA,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               GEORGE A. VOSE, ET AL.,
                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

               Opinion  of this  court  issued on  September  22, 1995,  is
          amended as follows:

               On page 3, line 11: replace the words "had worked" with "had
          not worked".

          September 22, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2062

                                  BERNARDO FIGUEROA,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               GEORGE A. VOSE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                  [Hon. Robert W. Lovegreen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                             _____________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Bernardo Figueroa on brief pro se.
            _________________
            David J.  Gentile on Memorandum In  Support of  Motion for Summary
            _________________
        Disposition for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   Bernardo  Figueroa appeals  from the
                      ___________

            district   court's  judgment  in   favor  of  various  prison

            officials  and medical  personnel.   In his  action under  42

            U.S.C.   1983, Figueroa  alleged that defendants had violated

            his  Eighth Amendment  rights by  denying him  proper medical

            care  for certain  eye  ailments.   Because the  record amply

            supports   the  district   court's   judgment,   we   affirm,

            essentially  for the  reasons given  in the  district court's

            decision.  See  Figueroa v.  Vose, 874 F.  Supp. 500  (D.R.I.
                       ___  ________     ____

            1994).    We add  only the  following comments  about certain

            arguments made on appeal.

                      First,  although  Figueroa  claims that  the  court

            refused to permit  two physicians to  testify on his  behalf,

            the  facts  do  not support  his  claim.    In scheduling  an

            additional  day  of trial,  the  district  court ordered  the

            parties  to present  any  remaining testimony  at that  time.

            Figueroa told the court that he had no further witnessess.

                      Second, Figueroa  claims that  the  record shows  a

            pattern   of  missed   outside  medical   appointments  which

            demonstrates  defendants'  deliberate  indifference   to  his

            medical needs.   The  record documents  only one  occasion on

            which Figueroa  missed an outside medical  appointment due to

            circumstances within  the prison's control.   In August 1993,

            prison officials brought him to the Rhode Island Hospital eye

            clinic  on the wrong day.   They rescheduled the appointment,

            however, and the rescheduled  appointment was kept.  Although

            a few  appointments were  missed due to  circumstances beyond

            the  prison's control,  all  such appointments  were promptly

            rescheduled and  kept.   Figueroa  had numerous  appointments

            with outside physicians which  were not missed.  Accordingly,

            the magistrate  correctly found  that defendants'  failure to

            bring Figueroa  to certain medical appointments  did not show

            their deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

                      Third,  Figueroa argues that  the court  should not

            have admitted  into evidence  a computer printout,  which was

            prepared by the prison payroll department and which allegedly

            showed that  corrections officer  Alfred Lancellotti had  not

            worked on April 23 and  24, 1993.  The court  determined that

            the printout  verified Lancellotti's trial testimony  that he

            had  not worked  on  the  days  in question.    We  need  not

            determine whether  the court erred in  admitting the printout

            into   evidence,  or   in   determining  that   it  supported

            Lancellotti's trial  testimony, since  any  such error  would

            have been harmless.  Figueroa hoped  to show that Lancellotti

            had worked  on  April 23  and  April 24,  1993, in  order  to

            establish two  other facts  that allegedly occurred  on those

            days  --  first,  that  Lancellotti  had  heard  one  of  the

            defendants,  a  nurse,  tell him  that  she  did  not have  a

            particular medication for him; and, second, that  Lancellotti

            had signed written requests  by Figueroa for that medication.

                                         -3-

            Demonstrating  either  of  those  facts would  not  show  the

            defendants'  deliberate  indifference  to Figueroa's  medical

            needs,  however.   The record  indicates that  the medication

            Figueroa  sought was  Naphcon-A, which an  outside specialist

            had recommended on April 20, 1993.  But the record also shows

            that  prison   staff  doctors   had  never   prescribed  that

            medication for Figueroa in April 1993 and that a prescription

            by a staff doctor  was required before medication recommended

            by  outside   physicians  could   be  given  to   an  inmate.

            Consequently, assuming that the  nurse did tell Figueroa that

            she did not have  the medication he sought, she  was entirely

            right,  and   her  statement  does  not  evidence  deliberate

            indifference to Figueroa's medical needs.  Likewise, assuming

            that   Figueroa  did   submit  written   requests  for   that

            medication,  the  failure  to  give  it  to  him   would  not

            demonstrate  defendants'  deliberate   indifference  to   his

            medical needs, absent a  showing that the prison unreasonably

            delayed in having a staff doctor evaluate the appropriateness

            of the medication and then issuing  a prescription.  Figueroa

            made no such showing.

                      Since  the  facts  Figueroa  ultimately  sought  to

            demonstrate  would  not have  shown  defendants' culpability,

            showing that  Lancellotti  could have  witnessed the  nurse's

            statement  or  signed  Figueroa's  requests  would  not  have

            advanced  Figueroa's  cause.   Hence,  the  admission of  the

                                         -4-

            payroll  printout  allegedly  showing  that  Lancellotti  was

            absent from work on the  days in question and could  not have

            known about the  events alleged by Figueroa,  and the court's

            determination  that  the  printout   confirmed  Lancellotti's

            testimony   that  he   was  absent,   could  not   have  been

            prejudicial.  

                      Finally, Figueroa argues that defendants have never

            returned him to an outside dermatologist regarding the lesion

            on his eyelid.  The  record indicates that there was no  need

            to  do so.    The  last  physician  to  evaluate  the  lesion

            recommended seeing  a dermatologist again only  if the lesion

            did  not heal.  In his appellate papers, Figueroa states that

            the lesion left  a scar  on his eyelid,  indicating that  the

            lesion has healed.

                      Affirmed.      
                      _________

                                         -5-