×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Jail Failure to Treat Psoriasis Upheld
In this seemingly incompetently litigated case, the plaintiff filed a
response to a summary judgment stating that the facts are "voluminous" and
incorporating the complaint and brief's statement of facts by reference,
instead of complying with the rule requiring a "separate and concise"
statement of material facts showing a triable issue. The court therefore
deems the defendants' separately stated facts admitted per the rule.
(1221-22) Several of his exhibits are stricken because they are not
authenticated (1224). A witness affidavit is stricken because the
plaintiff did not identify the witness in response to discovery requests or
in initial disclosures (1224-25). The court declines to strike the
plaintiff's entire response, which is 50% over the page limit.
The plaintiff has psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and complained that it
got worse while he was jailed and under the care of Prison Health Services.
He complained of the failure timely to replace clothing and bed sheets
that he bled on, the failure to allow him to take warm baths as recommended
by all dermatologist who saw him (the jail doesn't have bathtubs, he says
he should have been allowed to use the baptismal pool), a ten-day delay in
seeing a physician, lack of notes in his medical records about certain
conditions, mis-diagnosis of his back condition, delays in lab work,
failure to keep about 20% of specialist appointments, etc. The court holds
that there is no deliberate indifference, since he was seen by PHS doctors
seven times and by nurses at least 15 times in five months, was placed in
the medical unit for five days, received over 20 off-site specialist
consults, and tri-weekly ultraviolet treatments. His misdiagnosis
complaint is only malpractice, and the lack of bathing time rather than the
PHS-prescribed showering with Aveeno "relates to modes of treatment, not
lack of treatment." (1227) (The court here ignores the fact that all the
dermatologists who saw him recommended baths.) The allegations about
bloody bed sheets and clothing are "quite troubling" but don't show a
denial of medical care. See: Kramer v. Gwinnett County, Ga., 306 F.Supp.2d
1219 (N.D.Ga. 2004), aff'd, 116 Fed.Appx. 253 (11th Cir. 2004).
response to a summary judgment stating that the facts are "voluminous" and
incorporating the complaint and brief's statement of facts by reference,
instead of complying with the rule requiring a "separate and concise"
statement of material facts showing a triable issue. The court therefore
deems the defendants' separately stated facts admitted per the rule.
(1221-22) Several of his exhibits are stricken because they are not
authenticated (1224). A witness affidavit is stricken because the
plaintiff did not identify the witness in response to discovery requests or
in initial disclosures (1224-25). The court declines to strike the
plaintiff's entire response, which is 50% over the page limit.
The plaintiff has psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and complained that it
got worse while he was jailed and under the care of Prison Health Services.
He complained of the failure timely to replace clothing and bed sheets
that he bled on, the failure to allow him to take warm baths as recommended
by all dermatologist who saw him (the jail doesn't have bathtubs, he says
he should have been allowed to use the baptismal pool), a ten-day delay in
seeing a physician, lack of notes in his medical records about certain
conditions, mis-diagnosis of his back condition, delays in lab work,
failure to keep about 20% of specialist appointments, etc. The court holds
that there is no deliberate indifference, since he was seen by PHS doctors
seven times and by nurses at least 15 times in five months, was placed in
the medical unit for five days, received over 20 off-site specialist
consults, and tri-weekly ultraviolet treatments. His misdiagnosis
complaint is only malpractice, and the lack of bathing time rather than the
PHS-prescribed showering with Aveeno "relates to modes of treatment, not
lack of treatment." (1227) (The court here ignores the fact that all the
dermatologists who saw him recommended baths.) The allegations about
bloody bed sheets and clothing are "quite troubling" but don't show a
denial of medical care. See: Kramer v. Gwinnett County, Ga., 306 F.Supp.2d
1219 (N.D.Ga. 2004), aff'd, 116 Fed.Appx. 253 (11th Cir. 2004).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Kramer v. Gwinnett County, Ga.
| Year | 2004 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 306 F.Supp.2d 1219 (N.D.Ga. 2004) |
| Level | District Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
KRAMER v. GWINNETT COUNTY GEORGIA, 306 F.Supp.2d 1219 (N.D.Ga. 03/5/2004)
[1] United States District Court, N.D. Georgia
[2] 1:02-cv-2124-ODE
[3] 306 F.Supp.2d 1219
[4] March 5, 2004.
[5] Edward Eliot Kramer, Plaintiff,
v.
Gwinnett County, Georgia, R.L. "Butch" Conway, Prison Health Services, Inc. And Dwana Gebhardt, Defendants
[6] The opinion of the court was delivered by: ORINDA EVANS, Chief Judge, District
[7] JUDGMENT
[8] This action having come before the court, Honorable Orinda D. Evans, United States District Judge, for consideration of defendants' motions for summary judgment, and the court having granted said motions, it is
[9] Ordered and Adjudged that the plaintiff take nothing; that the defendants recover their costs of this action, and the action be, and the same hereby, is dismissed.
[1] United States District Court, N.D. Georgia
[2] 1:02-cv-2124-ODE
[3] 306 F.Supp.2d 1219
[4] March 5, 2004.
[5] Edward Eliot Kramer, Plaintiff,
v.
Gwinnett County, Georgia, R.L. "Butch" Conway, Prison Health Services, Inc. And Dwana Gebhardt, Defendants
[6] The opinion of the court was delivered by: ORINDA EVANS, Chief Judge, District
[7] JUDGMENT
[8] This action having come before the court, Honorable Orinda D. Evans, United States District Judge, for consideration of defendants' motions for summary judgment, and the court having granted said motions, it is
[9] Ordered and Adjudged that the plaintiff take nothing; that the defendants recover their costs of this action, and the action be, and the same hereby, is dismissed.