Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
An inmate who alleged prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs can proceed with his case against prison doctors after the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the defendants.
Justice Christopher Goff wrote the unanimous opinion in Edward Zaragoza v. Wexford of Indiana, LLC, et al., 23S-CT-99.
The inmate, Edward Zaragoza, is incarcerated at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility for convictions of murder, conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary. He has been diagnosed with hypothyroidism and was prescribed the drug Synthroid, but his dosage was reduced when he began complaining of side effects.
“In 2015, Zaragoza first experienced what might have been symptoms attributable to his condition,” Goff wrote. “Beyond these background facts, however, the opposing parties dispute almost every point concerning Zaragoza’s condition and treatment.”
The defendants — all doctors working at the prison — say Zaragoza refused to take his medication as ordered. They also claim he did not suffer severe side effects clearly attributable to the medication.
But Zaragoza says the medication has caused severe headaches, neck pain, blurred vision and hip pain. Dr. Richard Schultheis, who reviewed Zaragoza’s records, argued that the standard of care was to try another medication designed for patients who are allergic to Synthroid, but prison doctors refused.
Zaragoza stopped taking hypothyroidism medication in mid-2018, and he is now being treated with a non-allergenic alternative medication.
Zaragoza filed suit against the defendants alleging medical malpractice and deliberate indifference, among other claims.
The defendants sought summary judgment on the grounds that they had provided “appropriate care and treatment,” and the Marion Superior Court agreed.
Zaragoza filed a motion to correct error, which was deemed denied when the trial court failed to rule on it. The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed that denial in an August 2022 memorandum decision.
But the Indiana Supreme Court, which granted transfer last April, reversed.
Before the Supreme Court, Zaragoza argued that Schultheis’ affidavit was sufficient to create an issue of fact.
The justices agreed, rejecting the defense’s argument that the affidavit is the “kind of ‘junk science’ or ‘bald conclusion’ that warrants weeding out at the summary-judgment stage.”
Further, “Even if we were to assume that Dr. Schultheis’s conclusions did require specialist expertise, the same limitation applies to the defendants’ affidavits, which claim no greater specialist knowledge or experience than Dr. Schultheis’s affidavit does. This makes the defendants’ argument self-defeating,” Goff wrote.
Then, looking to Jordan v. Deery, 609 N.E.2d 1104 (Ind. 1993), the justices held there is a “substantive ‘conflict of evidence’ that ‘must be resolved by a trier of fact’” regarding the medical malpractice clam.
“Here, Dr. Schultheis states that he attended medical school and obtained a degree, is currently licensed and practicing in Indiana (albeit not full-time since 1967), and is familiar with the standard of care both ‘for general practitioners in the State of Indiana’ and ‘surrounding the facts and circumstances of this case.’ He recites having ‘reviewed all relevant medical records’ and having held ‘multiple conversations’ with Zaragoza ‘regarding his medical treatment.’ And he concludes that the doctors ‘did not follow the standard of care,’ thereby causing ‘injuries,’” Goff wrote.
Likewise as to Zaragoza’s claim of deliberate indifference, the justices found genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment.
As an initial matter, the court wrote, “Professional decisions based on medical judgment and the facts as the professional knows them do not constitute deliberate indifference. And a doctor does not have to comply with an inmate’s request for certain forms of care. But a ‘prison physician cannot simply continue with a course of treatment that he knows is ineffective in treating the inmate’s condition.’”
“There is some evidence that each doctor offered Synthroid as the only option for Zaragoza to treat his hypothyroidism, despite knowing of its adverse effects and potentially safer alternatives,” Goff wrote, distinguishing Zaragoza’s case from Zingg v. Groblewski, 907 F.3d 630 (1st Cir. 2018), and Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403 (7th Cir. 2014), but likening it to Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005), and Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2010).
“Given this possibility,” Goff concluded, “we are persuaded that Zaragoza has met his burden to show a genuine issue for trial.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.