Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Burger v. Bloomberg

Burger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2005)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2005-08-15
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that a Rehabilitation Act and/or an ADA claim cannot be based on medical treatment decisions
  • agreeing with the Eleventh Circuit and Tenth Circuits that a lawsuit under the RA or the ADA “cannot be based on medical treatment decisions”
  • agreeing with other circuits that lawsuits under the ADA “cannot be based on medical treatment decisions”
  • “conclude[ing] a lawsuit under the Rehab Act or [ADA] cannot be based on medical treatment decisions” (citations omitted)
  • “[A] lawsuit under the Rehab Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) cannot be based on medical treatment decisions.”
  • medical care provided to inmate for his diabetes could not be basis ' for action
  • an ADA claim “cannot be 8 VDOC OP 720.6 sets forth several requirements related to prosthodontics. Prosthodontic treatment (removable and/or transitional dentures

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Burger v. Bloomberg. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
27 opinions
PER CURIAM.

Tracy Burger (Burger), as personal representative of Anthony King’s (King) estate, appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment. After King died while in the custody of the South Dakota Department of Corrections (DOC), Burger sued the DOC, certain DOC officials, the Sioux Valley Hospital Association, and two medical professionals, claiming violations of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehab Act). Burger based her claim on allegations of inadequate medical care for King’s diabetes. 2

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, see Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir.2000), we agree with two other circuits that have recently concluded a lawsuit under the Rehab Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) cannot be based on medical treatment decisions, see, e.g., Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2005) (Rehab Act, like ADA, was never intended to apply to decisions involving medical treatment); Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir.2005) (inmate’s claims under Rehab Act and ADA were properly dismissed for failure to state claim as they were based on medical treatment decisions). Cf. Monahan v. Nebraska, 687 F.2d 1164, 1170-71 (8th Cir.1982) (“We do not read § 504 as creating general tort liability for educational malpractice .... ”).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The • Honorable John E. Simko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

2

. Burger waived her remaining claims on appeal. See Shade v. City of Farmington, Minn., 309 F.3d 1054, 1058 n. 6 (8th Cir.2002).