Deliberate Indifference-Deprivation of Rights

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Victor R. Brown v. Daniel LaVoie

Case No.: 22-1585

Officials: Easterbrook, Wood, and Kirsch, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Deliberate Indifference-Deprivation of Rights

The case centered on Brown, an inmate with a history of self-harm, who embedded a two-inch metal screw into his flesh. Dr. LaVoie, a prison doctor, attempted to remove the screw without anesthesia, despite Brown’s evident pain and protests. Dr. LaVoie twice tried, and twice failed, to extract the screw using a pair of metal-ring forceps. He did so without using any anesthetic to deaden the site. When he first informed Brown that this would be his approach, Brown protested by attempting to head-butt him. During the second attempt, Dr. LaVoie again refused to apply an anesthetic, even though Brown’s pain was obvious. The doctor poked at Brown’s arm and tried to pull on the screw for several minutes as Brown shouted in pain. He paused only to make dismissive comments, such as telling Brown that he needed to change his attitude. Eventually Brown was taken to a local hospital, where staff administered an anesthetic and removed the screw painlessly and quickly. Brown later had the screw removed painlessly at a hospital with anesthetic.

Brown alleged that Dr. LaVoie’s actions constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court initially granted summary judgment to Dr. LaVoie, finding no deliberate indifference and granting him qualified immunity. However, the appeals court saw differently, noting that there was a genuine dispute of material fact about Dr. LaVoie’s state of mind. The court highlighted that Dr. LaVoie viewed the procedure as a “consequence” of Brown’s behavior and continued the removal without anesthesia despite Brown’s pain, suggesting potential hostility or punitive intent.

The court emphasized that while professional judgment in medical decisions is usually deferred to, Dr. LaVoie’s lack of explanation for his refusal to use anesthesia and his behavior during the procedure raised questions about his motives. The Seventh Circuit ruled that the case should not have been dismissed at summary judgment given these disputed facts about Dr. LaVoie’s state of mind, thus necessitating further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded.

Decided 01/23/24

Full Text