Civil Rights
Eighth amendment; deliberate indifference

A prisoner claiming deliberate indifference to his medical needs is not required to produce expert testimony.

"The district court placed significant weight on Gil's failure to present expert witnesses to testify regarding whether Reed met the applicable standard of care. In Gil's first appeal we rejected this argument because 'nothing in Wisconsin law prevents a plaintiff from relying on the defendant (such as Reed) or the defendant's agents . . . to supply evidence regarding the appropriate standard of care.' See Gil, 381 F.3d at 659. On remand Dr. Kim and Dr. Harms summarily opined that Reed had met the standard of care, but other contradictory portions of their testimony might undermine these conclusory opinions. A rational jury could determine from their inconsistent testimony that Reed did not meet the standard of care. Moreover, a layman could decide, based on common experience aside from the doctors' testimony, that Penaflor's and Reed's treatment of Gil fell short of appropriate treatment. Gil is entitled to rely on the defendants' expert testimony as well as res ipsa loquitor under Wisconsin law with respect to all of his FTCA claims, including his miscellaneous claims for negligence. Because the factual record as it stands permits multiple interpretations, those inconsistencies cannot be resolved at the summary judgment phase."

Vacated and Remanded.

06-1414 Gil v. Reed

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Rovner, J.

Full Text