Court Opinion

ID: 9816724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 03:30:01.357289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:14.151602
License: Public Domain

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join the Court’s opinion and concur in the result reached, except with respect to the *1246plaintiff Shirley Allen. In my opinion, her case raises genuine issues of material fact that deserve a trial by jury.
It is undisputed that Ms. Allen had a serious heart condition. There is evidence that on an occasion when she suffered intense chest pains, correctional staff refused to inform the medical department. Ms. Allen went to the medical center anyway, was told that she could hot see a doctor for a week, and then collapsed. In fact, she did not see a doctor until the following week.
This seems to me a paradigm case of deliberate indifference. The fact that “[h]er medical records do not evidence [the] occurrence” alleged in Ms. Allen’s affidavit, ante at 1243-44, is not relevant at the summary-judgment stage. She is obviously competent to testify as to what happened in respect of her own physical condition. Her testimony is admissible and could be believed by a jury. The absence of mention of the incident in the defendants’ medical records may actually cut in favor of the plaintiff, because it may show that defendants covered up the occurrence. If one has a serious heart condition, suffers intense chest pains, and collapses, it seems to me that a trier of fact could reasonably find that withholding attention from a physician for a week amounts to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.