 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. Masters5/4/2000
Allen Paul Jones (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's summary judgment, granted in favor of Luthor Masters and Rochelle McKinney (Appellees). Appellant, a prison inmate of the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and appearing before this Court pro se, brought this action against Appellees, asserting that they unlawfully denied medical treatment to him. In contending that the summary judgment was improperly granted by the trial court, Appellant alleges that (1) the affidavit relied upon by Appellees to support their motion for summary judgment was insufficient as a matter of law, and (2) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees on the grounds of official immunity, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, or the statute of limitations. We affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard for reviewing a motion for summary judgment under Rule 166a is well-established: (1) the movant must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law; (2) in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true; and (3) every reasonable inference must be resolved in the non-movant's favor. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a; Science Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941 S.W.2d 910, 911 (Tex. 1997). Where, as here, the summary judgment does not specify the grounds upon which summary judgment was granted, we will affirm the judgment if any of the theories advanced in the motion are meritorious. See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. S.S., 858 S.W.2d 374, 380 (Tex. 1993).
DISCUSSION
In his second original amended complaint, Appellant alleged three causes of action against Appellees. His first cause of action alleged that Appellees were negligent, grossly negligent and deliberately indifferent in denying medical treatment to him. He alleged that Appellee Masters, a medical doctor, breached his duty to refer Appellant to a medical specialist for the "proper diagnosis and treatment of the two knots or tumors" in the back of his neck and left shoulder. He further alleged that Appellee McKinney, an inmate grievance officer, breached her duty to undertake a meaningful review and investigation of grievances and to recommend that he be referred to a medical specialist. Appellant alleged that both Appellees "exhibited an entire want of care which would raise the belief that the failures of [Appellees] in this regard was the result of conscious indifference to the rights and welfare of [Appellant]." His second cause of action alleged that Appellees violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by retaliating against him by refusing to refer him to a medical specialist. Appellant alleged that Appellees retaliated against him because (1) of his "repeated use of the prison grievance procedure to complain of the denial of medical treatment," and (2) he filed a federal civil rights suit against another prison medical official, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical condition. His third cause of action alleged that both Appellees acted deliberately indifferent to his medical condition, in violation of the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments. Appellant sought $30,000 in monetary damages and injunctive relief, ordering Appellees to refer him to a medical specialist "at UTMB/John Sealy Hospital, at Galveston, Texas . . . ."
We observe that for an inmate to successfully establish a claim based upon "deliberate indifference" relative to the conduct of prison officials and prison medical personnel, as here, the inmate must show that the official knows of and disregards an excessiv
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|