Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Brian Anthony Crowley, Sr. v. Paul Hedgepeth John Emmett Unknown/unnamed Houn, Also Known as Chip, Sued as Mr. Houn Lester Houn

Brian Anthony Crowley, Sr. v. Paul Hedgepeth John Emmett Unknown/unnamed Houn, Also Known as Chip, Sued as Mr. Houn Lester Houn, 109 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 1997)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1997-03-28
Topic: litigation

holding that objective seriousness of alleged unconstitutional delay in receiving treatment is measured by reference to effect of delay | holding that an inmate must produce verifying medical evidence to show detrimental effect of a delay in medical treatment to avoid summary judgment | holding that an inmate must produce verifying medical evidence to show detrimental effect of a delay in medical treatment to avoid summary judgment | holding that an inmate must produce verifying medical evidence to show detrimental effect of a delay in medical treatment to avoid summary judgment | holding that there was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment when inmate failed to submit medical evidence to support that the delay in receiving sunglasses had an adverse effect or caused further damage to his eye | explaining that plaintiff must place verifying medical evidence into record to establish effect lapse in treatment had on medical condition | noting that a plaintiff must show verifying medical evidence that a delay in treatment had detrimental effect | explaining that plaintiff must place verifying medical evidence into record to establish effect lapse in treatment had on medical condition | affirming summary judgment when inmate failed to submit verifying medical evidence that prison officials’ delay had an adverse effect | affirming summary judgment because plaintiff failed to submit medical evidence showing the delay in providing sunglasses adversely affected his prognosis | affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment where a prisoner offered no verifying medical evidence that his eye damage was caused by the prison’s failure to provide him with prescribed sunglasses following eye surgery | inmate complaining of delay in medical treatment must present verifying medical evidence to show that the delay had detrimental effect | inmate who complains about delay in medical treatment must present verifying medical evidence of detrimental effect of delay | no medical evidence presented showing the “delay . . . had any adverse affect on his prognosis” | objective seriousness of alleged unconstitutional delay in receiving treatment is measured by reference to effect of delay | where inmate complains that delay in medical treatment violated Eighth Amendment, inmate must present verifying medical evidence to show detrimental effect of delay | inmate complaining of delay in medical treatment must present—at the summary judgment stage—verifying medical evidence to show that the delay had detrimental effect | allegation that delay had adverse effect on prognosis is element of deliberate indifference claim | an inmate complaining that delay in medical treatment rose to a constitutional violation must place verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental effect of delay in medical treatment to succeed | objective evidence of harm caused by delay required to establish deliberate indifference

Citator

Cited by: 53 opinions

MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

Brian Crowley, Sr. brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action against Paul Hedgepeth and John Emmett for allegedly violating Crowley’s Eighth Amendment rights by delaying the provision of sunglasses to Crowley. The district court 1 granted summary judgment against Crowley, holding that the defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Crowley’s serious medical needs. We affirm.

Crowley, an inmate at Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP), suffers from sickle cell anemia and photophobia. During his confinement at ISP, Crowley complained of eye pain and sensitivity to light. On February 10, 1993, Dr. Patrick Brady, Crowley’s physician, wrote on Crowley’s medical chart a “Non-Medicinal order for inmate’s own personal property Rx Tinted Eyeglasses x 1 mo.” Ex. 7 at 34, reprinted in J.A. at 125. Deputy Warden Paul Hedgepeth and Security Director John Emmett delayed acting on this order based on the ISP policy that sunglasses may not be possessed by an inmate unless there is a clear medical necessity.

On March 11, 1993, Crowley underwent eye surgery at the University of Iowa. Following his surgery, Crowley’s University of Iowa physicians prescribed tinted lenses and requested that plastic tinted lenses be used until Crowley was fitted with permanent lenses. On March 31, 1993, Dr. Brady ordered temporary plastic tinted sunglasses for two weeks, but also noted in Crowley’s medical record that “No clear medical need for tinted eyeglasses was delineated.” Ex. 7 at 22, reprinted in J.A. at 113. In April 1993, the prescription for tinted lenses was filled. For protection, not to relieve light sensitivity, Crowley was also issued an eye patch after his surgery. In a deposition, Dr. Brady stated that the provision of sunglasses was “certainly not crucial to” Crowley’s treatment and that “whether or not he had the sunglasses certainly caused no further damage or less damage to his eye.” Dep. of Brady at 68, reprinted in J.A. at 247.

On September 28, 1993, Crowley brought suit against Hedgepeth and Emmett. Crowley alleged that the defendant’s deliberate indifference to his medical needs violated the Eighth Amendment. On December 13, 1995, the district court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Crowley appeals.

II.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Disesa v. *502 St. Louis Community College, 79 F.3d 92, 94 (8th Cir.1996). “We will affirm the decision if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Zakrzewski v. Fox, 87 F.3d 1011, 1012 (8th Cir.1996) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Landreth v. First Nat’l Bank of Cleburne County, 45 F.3d 267, 268 (8th Cir.1995)). As the Supreme Court has stated:

In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

Crowley argues that Hedgepeth and Emmett violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by delaying the provision of sunglasses. For Crowley .to succeed, he must establish the following requirements:

First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious. Second, a prison official must be, as a subjective state of mind, deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s health and safety. .

Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1326 (8th Cir.1995) (quotations and citations omitted).

We have held that, “when the inmate alleges that the delay in treatment is the constitutional deprivation, the objective seriousness of the deprivation should also be measured ‘by reference to the effect of delay in treatment.’ ” Id. (quoting Hill v. Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1188 (11th Cir.1994) (emphasis in Hill)). “An inmate who complains that delay in medical treatment rose to a constitutional violation must place verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental effect of delay in medical treatment to succeed.” Hill, 40 F.3d at 1188 (footnote omitted).

Here, we find that Crowley has failed to submit verifying medical evidence that delay in the provision of sunglasses had any adverse affect on his prognosis. To the contrary, “whether or not he had the sunglasses certainly caused no further damage or less damage to his eye.” Dep. of Brady at 68, reprinted in J.A. at 247. Because Crowley failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an essential element of his Eighth Amendment claim, the district court properly granted summary judgment against him.

III.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

. The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.