 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Turner v. Polunsky3/15/2001
Inmates, Curtis Turner and Roel Tanguma, appeal the trial court's dismissal of their pro se in forma pauperis action.
BACKGROUND
Appellants are prison inmates in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (TDCJ) who have been diagnosed with hepatitis C. They sued prison officials and prison medical personnel (appellees) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming appellees' failure to provide them with adequate medical treatment violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Appellants sought injunctive relief requesting that appellees be ordered to send them to medical specialists, give appellants certain medical tests and treatment, and reduce appellants' work assignments. Appellants filed an amended petition adding an additional cause of action under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and claims for compensatory and punitive damages. Appellants also filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking the trial court to direct appellees to send them to specialists and reduce their work assignments. The hearing on this motion began on August 19, 1999 and was continued until November 17, 1999.
At the November 17 hearing (TRO hearing), appellants testified regarding their medical treatment while in prison, and gave their lay opinions as to why they felt their medical treatment was substandard based on their independent research. The trial court also heard the testimony of Dr. Glenda Adams, appellees' medical expert. Dr. Adams testified regarding the national standards for treating hepatitis C, TDCJ's treatment plan for inmates diagnosed with the disease, and the specific medical treatment received by appellants.
At the conclusion of the TRO hearing, appellees' counsel moved for dismissal of appellants' suit under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Appellees argued that appellants' Eighth Amendment claim of cruel and unusual punishment had no basis in law or fact because appellants could not show that appellees acted with deliberate indifference to their medical needs. The trial court agreed and granted appellees' motion to dismiss.
DISCUSSION
Section 14.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows a trial court to dismiss a suit filed by an indigent inmate, either before or after service of process, if the court finds that the claim is frivolous or malicious. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2001). At the TRO hearing, appellees' counsel correctly informed the trial court that appellants had the burden at trial to show that appellees acted with deliberate indifference to prevail on their claim of cruel and unusual punishment. In order for a plaintiff to show that his medical treatment during incarceration violated his Eighth Amendment rights, he must present "facts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976). The United States Supreme Court has defined deliberate indifference as subjective recklessness, or a conscious disregard of substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 839, 114 S. Ct. 1979, 1979 (1994). If a defendant knows of a substantial risk to a plaintiff's health and consciously disregards it, he is being deliberately indifferent; however, a complaint that a physician "has been [merely] negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S. Ct. at 292.
At the conclusion of the TRO hearing, the trial court sta
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|