Keith Goodman v. Gene Johnson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00079-GBL-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000009855].. [15-6733]
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 1 of 14
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6733
KEITH D. GOODMAN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
KIM RUNION; ELTON BROWN, Doctor; KRYM; SPRUILL, Doctor,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
A. DAVID ROBINSON; J. LAFOON; Q. BIRCHETTE; MS. G. F.
SIVELS; G. ROBINSON; CASSANDRA TAYLOR; C. MAYES; C. BAILEY;
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; GENE M. JOHNSON; HAROLD W. CLARKE;
JOHN JABE; FRED SHILLING; HARVARD STEPHENS, Doctor,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:11-cv-00079-GBL-IDD)
Argued:
December 6, 2016
Before GREGORY,
Judges.
Chief
Judge,
Decided:
and
TRAXLER
January 25, 2017
and
DIAZ,
Circuit
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED:
Erik R. Zimmerman, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Carlene Booth
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 2 of 14
Johnson, PERRY LAW FIRM, Dillwyn,
Jones, Jr., SINNOTT, NUCKOLS &
Virginia, for Appellees.
Virginia; Gary
LOGAN, P.C.,
Christopher
Midlothian,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 3 of 14
PER CURIAM:
Keith Goodman is an inmate in the custody of the Virginia
Department
of
Corrections
(“VDOC”).
He
brought
this
action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against optometrists Dr. Elton Brown and
Dr. David Spruill, (together “Defendants”), claiming that they
were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by refusing
to prescribe him contact lenses instead of eyeglasses to correct
his vision, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition
against
cruel
and
unusual
punishment.
Goodman
appeals
the
district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Defendants, as
well
as
the
district
court’s
denial
of
his
appointment of an expert witness and for discovery.
motion
for
We affirm.
I.
Prior to his incarceration, Goodman primarily wore contact
lenses to correct his condition of moderate myopia, commonly
known
as
nearsightedness.
optometrists
prescribed
From
Goodman
eyeglasses, at his request.
2005
contact
through
lenses,
2008,
VDOC
rather
than
According to Goodman, he avoided
wearing prescription eyeglasses because he believed that they
caused him to experience headaches.
In January 2009, Dr. Elton Brown, the treating optometrist
at
Brunswick
Correctional
Center,
where
Goodman
had
been
transferred, evaluated Goodman’s vision and refused to prescribe
him contact lenses.
Under VDOC policy:
3
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 4 of 14
Contact lens[es] will be supplied when medically
indicated.
Offenders wearing contact lens[es] when
entering the system will be evaluated and allowed to
keep the lenses if medically indicated. Offenders not
meeting the criteria for contact lens[es] will be
issued eyeglasses if needed.
J.A. 85.
The policy was based upon the VDOC’s understanding
“that there are a few ophthalmologic diseases which are improved
with contact lenses versus eyeglasses.”
J.A. 81.
Absent that
medical determination, however, “eyeglasses, for the most part,
correct vision disorders, are easier to manage, and are less
expensive” than contact lenses.
J.A. 81-82.
Dr. Brown “saw no indication of any medical need for Mr.
Goodman
having
to
be
prescribed
eyeglasses
Goodman
to
have
contact
instead
any
of
lenses,
contact
headaches
nor
or
lenses
any
reason
why
would
cause
Mr.
discomfort.”
J.A.
157.
According to Goodman, Dr. Brown told him that he would check
with
the
prison
warden
and
see
if
she
would
approve
the
prescription of contact lenses to correct Goodman’s vision, at
Goodman’s expense, notwithstanding the VDOC policy.
However,
that request was denied, and Dr. Brown thereafter prescribed and
fitted Goodman with prescription eyeglasses.
In
April
2009,
Goodman
visited
Dr.
Brown
again
and
complained of headaches which Goodman attributed to his wearing
his
eyeglasses.
excellent
vision
Dr.
in
Brown
both
informed
eyes
4
with
Goodman
the
that
correction
he
of
“had
his
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 5 of 14
eyeglasses, and there was no medical reason for his level of
myopia, with only a minimum difference between the two eyes, to
cause headaches with his prescribed eyeglasses.”
J.A. 158.
In
Dr. Brown’s judgment, “[t]here was no medical reason for Mr.
Goodman to be prescribed contact lenses instead of eyeglasses,
nor
any
medical
reason
for
switching
Mr.
Goodman
lenses from eyeglasses to alleviate any headaches.”
And
“because
[Dr.
Brown]
was
unable
to
verify
to
contact
J.A. 158.
[Goodman’s]
headaches, he w[as] disallowed from prescribing anything other
than eyeglasses for [Goodman’s] needed vision-correction.”
J.A.
39.
In September 2009, Goodman was evaluated by Dr. Krym, the
VDOC
optometrist
at
Green
Rock
Goodman had been transferred.
Correctional
Center,
where
Goodman alleged that Dr. Krym
likewise informed him that he could not prescribe contact lenses
to correct his vision.
Goodman
was
Correctional Center.
subsequently
transferred
to
Greensville
In March 2010, Goodman was evaluated by
Dr. David Spruill, the prison optometrist at Greensville.
Dr.
Spruill also found no medical indication for contact lenses.
According to Dr. Spruill, “[a]t no time, did I believe, in my
medical judgment, that anything to do with Mr. Goodman having
been prescribed eyeglasses instead of contact lenses was the
cause of any headaches, nor did I believe that prescribing Mr.
5
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 6 of 14
Goodman contact lenses would alleviate any headaches.”
227.
J.A.
Goodman subsequently requested that Prison Health Services
clarify to Dr. Spruill that the VDOC policy did not prohibit him
from prescribing contacts if medically indicated to alleviate
Goodman’s headaches.
In response, Goodman was advised by the
prison officials that “contact lenses can only be prescribed
when medically necessary.
According to your medical record you
do not have a clinical need for contacts.”
Noting
that
the
optometrist
had
J.A. 90.
stated
that
Goodman’s
headaches “were unrelated to the eyeglasses,” the VDOC medical
officials then referred Goodman to an outside ophthalmologist
“to
determine
Goodman
was
provided
no
what
seen
by
medical
[was]
Dr.
causing
Gupta
evidence
or
his
in
headaches,”
July
other
results of his ophthalmology examination.
2011.
J.A.
Goodman
information
about
79. 1
has
the
However, he does not
assert that Dr. Gupta found his headaches to be causally related
1
An optometrist is “a health care provider who examines,
diagnoses, treats, and manages diseases and disorders of the
visual system, the eye, and associated structures, as well as
diagnosing related systemic conditions.”
Dorland’s Illustrated
Medical Dictionary 1331 (32nd ed. 2012). An ophthalmologist is
“a physician who specializes in the diagnosis and medical and
surgical treatment of diseases and defects of the eye and
related structures.”
Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary
1329 (32nd ed. 2012) (emphasis added).
6
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 7 of 14
to his wearing eyeglasses and he continues to assert that he has
been denied contact lenses by the VDOC. 2
Goodman thereafter filed this complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against various prison officials, alleging that they failed
to adequately respond to his vision and headache complaints.
Goodman
additionally
sued
the
three
optometrists
that
had
evaluated him - Dr. Brown, Dr. Spruill, and Dr. Krym - alleging
that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs because they knew that his eyeglasses caused him to suffer
from headaches and nonetheless refused to prescribe him contact
lenses.
Goodman did not name Dr. Gupta, the ophthalmologist, as
a defendant.
We previously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of
Goodman’s claims against the prison officials under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim.
2013)
See Goodman v. Johnson, 524 Fed. App’x. 887 (4th Cir.
(per
curiam).
Assuming
without
deciding
that
Goodman
suffered from a sufficiently serious medical need, however, we
reversed
the
district
court’s
dismissal
2
of
Goodman’s
claims
Goodman’s father, a physician specializing in obstetrics
and gynecology, contacted the VDOC to advocate his son’s request
for contact lenses during this time period and has filed an
affidavit on his son’s behalf.
However, Dr. Goodman does not
claim to have evaluated or treated Goodman for his myopia, nor
does he specialize in optometry or ophthalmology.
7
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 8 of 14
against the three optometrists because the VDOC policy alone
would
not
insulate
them
from
liability
if
their
treatment
otherwise rose to the level of deliberate indifference.
On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to
Dr.
Brown
and
Dr.
summary judgment.
Spruill
and
denied
Goodman’s
motion
for
The district court dismissed Goodman’s claim
against Dr. Krym for lack of service.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
This appeal followed.
II.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court
and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.
Cir. 2012).
See Martin v. Lloyd, 700 F.3d 132, 135 (4th
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“Conclusory or speculative allegations
do not suffice” to defeat summary judgment, “nor does a mere
scintilla of evidence in support of [the non-moving party’s]
case” suffice.
Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d
645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The
Eighth
Amendment
to
the
United
States
Constitution
prohibits prison officials from inflicting “cruel and unusual
punishments”
by
acting
with
deliberate
8
indifference
to
a
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
prisoner’s
Filed: 01/25/2017
serious
medical
Pg: 9 of 14
needs.
U.S.
Const.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).
amend.
VIII;
To prevail in a
medical needs case, the inmate must satisfy the two-pronged test
set forth in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).
First,
deliberate
the
inmate
indifference
must
demonstrate
to
an
the
“objectively
defendant’s
‘sufficiently
serious’” medical need, Scinto v. Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219, 225
(4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Farmer, 51 U.S. at 834), “that has
either ‘been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or
.
.
.
is
recognize
so
the
obvious
that
necessity
even
for
a
a
lay
person
doctors’
would
attention.’”
easily
Id.
(quoting Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008)).
Second, under the subjective prong, the inmate must prove
that the defendants “acted with a ‘sufficiently culpable state
of mind.’”
Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834).
The inmate
must show that the defendant “actually knew of and disregarded a
substantial risk of serious injury . . . or that they actually
knew of and ignored a . . . serious need for medical care.”
Young v. City of Mt. Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2001);
see also Scinto, 841 F.3d at 225.
“Medical
malpractice
does
not
become
a
constitutional
violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.”
429 U.S. at 106.
Estelle,
“Thus, a complaint that a physician has been
negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not
9
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
state a valid claim.”
Id.
Pg: 10 of 14
And “an inadvertent failure to
provide adequate medical care cannot be said to constitute an
unnecessary and wonton infliction of pain or to be repugnant to
the conscience of mankind.”
Id. at 105-06 (internal quotation
marks omitted); Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir.
1990)
(The
medical
provider’s
disregard
of
the
prisoner’s
serious medical needs must have been “so grossly incompetent,
inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be
intolerable
to
fundamental
fairness.”),
overruled
in
part
on
other grounds by Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
III.
A.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Goodman, the record
creates no genuine issue of material fact to support Goodman’s
deliberate indifference claim against the Defendants.
Even assuming, without deciding, that Goodman’s need for
vision correction and/or his subjective complaints of headaches
constituted an “objectively sufficiently serious medical need,”
there is no evidence that Defendants denied Goodman medically
necessary treatment or that their failure to provide alternative
treatment
in
the
form
of
contact
lenses
was
the
result
of
deliberate indifference on their part.
Goodman has moderate myopia, which Defendants corrected to
20/20 vision by prescription eyeglasses.
10
Goodman subjectively
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 11 of 14
complained of headaches and informed Defendants of his opinion
that
such
headaches
eyeglasses.
were
Defendants
causally
related
his
wearing
evaluated
independently
to
and
treated
Goodman at two separate prisons, considered his complaint from
the
perspective
of
their
field
of
optometry,
and
found
no
medical basis upon which to believe that Goodman’s headaches
were
caused
alleviate
by
his
them.
eyeglasses
According
or
to
that
contact
Goodman’s
lenses
complaint,
a
would
third
optometrist, Dr. Krym, also evaluated Goodman and refused to
prescribe
contact
lenses.
And
because
the
optometrists
had
concluded that Goodman’s headaches were not causally related to
his prescription eyeglasses, VDOC medical personnel thereafter
referred
Goodman
to
an
ophthalmologist
for
a
follow-up
examination to determine the cause of Goodman’s headaches.
Plainly,
Goodman
disagrees
with
the
Defendants’
medical
judgment that his headaches were not causally related to his
wearing
prescription
eyeglasses.
For
that
reason,
he
also
disagrees with their decision not to authorize the prescription
of
contact
indicated
lenses
to
under
alleviate
the
VDOC
such
“[d]isagreements
between
an
inmate’s
medical
care
proper
policy
as
headaches.
inmate
do
and
not
a
being
medically
Generally,
physician
state
a
§
over
1983
such
the
claim.”
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Russell
v.
Sheffer,
528
F.2d
318,
11
319
(4th
Cir.
1975)
(per
Appeal: 15-6733
curiam)
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
(“Questions
of
Pg: 12 of 14
medical
judgment
are
not
subject
to
judicial review.”).
There is also insufficient evidence to support Goodman’s
theory that Defendants must have actually believed that Goodman
was experiencing headaches caused by his eyeglasses, but would
not say so because prison officials, notwithstanding the written
VDOC policy, had forbidden them from prescribing contact lenses
even if medically indicated.
factual
allegations
that
In support, Goodman points to his
Dr.
Brown
told
him
that
he
would
inquire as to whether the prison officials would allow Goodman
to obtain contacts at his own expense and that both Defendants
told him that they could not prescribe him contact lenses under
the VDOC policy and would face consequences if they did.
At best, Goodman’s factual assertions might establish that
Defendants followed the VDOC policy and that Dr. Brown made an
effort on Goodman’s behalf to obtain an exception to the policy.
But there is no evidence that Dr. Brown told any prison official
that, in his medical judgment, contact lenses were medically
indicated under the policy as opposed to simply an appropriate
form of vision correction.
Nor is there any evidence that Dr.
Brown or Dr. Spruill were told by the prison officials that,
notwithstanding
contact
lenses
prescription
was
the
even
VDOC
if,
indicated
policy,
they
in
their
to
prevent
12
could
medical
not
prescribe
judgment,
headaches.
the
Moreover,
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 13 of 14
Goodman’s theory is inconsistent with the undisputed fact that,
after both Defendants had concluded that Goodman’s subjective
complaints of headaches were not related to his prescription
eyeglasses,
the
ophthalmology,
VDOC
Dr.
referred
Gupta,
causes for his headaches.
for
Goodman
to
evaluation
a
of
specialist
other
in
possible
Accordingly, Goodman’s theory is much
too speculative and conclusory to defeat Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.
B.
Goodman also appeals the district court’s denial of his
request for discovery and for appointment of an expert witness.
Goodman had sought to inquire into whether Defendants treated
non-prisoners
opportunity
differently
to
obtain
a
than
prisoners
medical
opinion
and
and
he
wanted
develop
the
other
evidence that would refute Defendants’ medical judgments.
We
find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s rulings.
The discovery and expert opinions that Goodman sought might or
might not have substantiated his opinion that his headaches were
causally
related
to
his
wearing
prescription
eyeglasses,
but
they would not have supported his claim that Defendants were
subjectively aware of this causal relationship and yet, with
deliberate indifference thereto, issued medical opinions to the
contrary.
Accordingly, we affirm these rulings as well.
13
Appeal: 15-6733
Doc: 49
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 14 of 14
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the Defendants.
We also find no
reversible error in the district court’s orders denying Goodman
an expert witness and discovery. 3
AFFIRMED
3
In the event that we reversed the grant of summary
judgment to Dr. Brown and Dr. Spruill, Goodman requested that we
also reverse the district court’s order dismissing his § 1983
deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Krym for lack of
service and that we instruct the district court to appoint
counsel for Goodman on remand.
Because we affirm the grant of
summary judgment to Dr. Brown and Dr. Spruill, we do not address
these issues.
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?