Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Article Title

Reasonable Response: The Achilles' Heel of the Seventh Circuit's "Deliberate Indifference" Analysis

Authors

Meaghan A. Sweeney

Abstract

Prisoners who believe their constitutional rights were violated through deficient medical care can pursue a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To prevail on this claim, the prisoner must show that a medical provider acted with deliberate indifference towards a serious medical condition. Ordinary medical negligence is not a constitutional claim simply because the victim is a prisoner. Yet, circuits are split on exactly what physician behavior constitutes deliberate indifference. Courts have given varying degrees of deference to a physician's case-specific medical determination. Courts debate whether palliative care—relieving pain without an effort to cure—is enough; and whether constitutionalizing medical malpractice may have negative consequences on prison health care systems.

In Petties v. Carter, the Seventh Circuit considered whether a physician's rationale for medical treatment created a triable issue as to whether or not he acted with deliberate indifference. The plaintiff suffered from a ruptured Achilles' tendon. Standard treatment protocol for this injury includes, among other things, receiving a splint, which serves to immobilize the foot. The plaintiff alleged that, in not prescribing a splint, the defendants exacerbated his injury. However, the defendants contended that they were not deliberately indifferent; rather than using a splint, they decided to immobilize Petties' foot through use of crutches, lay-in meals, and a lower bunk assignment.

The Seventh Circuit, in a 6-3 decision, reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. This Note argues that the Seventh Circuit's reversal failed to adequately defer to: 1) precedent precluding from liability actors who demonstrate a reasonable response to risk of injury, 2) public policy support for respecting case-specific medical judgment, and 3) state medical malpractice laws, which are more equitable and efficient in addressing claims of deficient medical care.

Streaming Media

Recommended Citation

Meaghan A. Sweeney, Reasonable Response: The Achilles' Heel of the Seventh Circuit's "Deliberate Indifference" Analysis, 12 Seventh Circuit Rev. 62 (2017).
Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/seventhcircuitreview/vol12/iss1/4