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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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