Roberts v. Blades et al

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 43 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Randy Blades. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ROY W. ROBERTS,
Case No. 1:13-CV-312-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION

v.
RANDY BLADES; DR. SCOTT LOSSMAN;
CORIZON MEDICAL CERVICES; DR.
GARTH GULICK; DR. GLEN BABICH; DR.
MURRAY YOUNG,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Randy
Blades. The motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained below, the
Court will grant defendant Blades’ motion for summary judgment.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Roy Roberts, an inmate at the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI),
claims that jail officials were deliberately indifferent to his back pain. He alleges that
medical professionals working at the jail ignored his pain and delayed surgery for almost
two years. He brings this § 1983 action to recover damages for the pain he endured while
his surgery was delayed. In his complaint, Roberts sued (1) Randy Blades, the ISCI
Memorandum Decision – page 1

Warden; (2) Corizon Medical Services, the company providing medical services at the
ISCI; and (3) four physicians with Corizon who worked at the ISCI, Dr. Scott Lossman,
Dr. Garth Gulick, Dr. Glen Babich, and Dr. Murray Young.
Earlier, five of the six defendants moved for summary judgment. Roberts argued
in response that the motion should be denied because the five defendants ignored his back
pain, delayed his surgery, and treated him with ineffective psychotropic medications
instead of narcotics.
In a lengthy decision, the Court described the details of Roberts’ treatment. See
Memorandum Decision (Dkt. No. 49). To summarize that discussion, independent
medical experts had prescribed conservative treatment rather than surgery, and this
necessarily delayed his surgery. Id. Moreover, psychotropic drugs were commonly
prescribed for back pain rather than narcotics in a prison setting. Id. The Court found no
evidence in the record that the five defendants had been deliberately indifferent to
Roberts’ back problems and so granted the motion for summary judgment. Id.
The single remaining defendant – Warden Blades – has now filed a motion for
summary judgment. The Court will not repeat the lengthy recitation of facts contained in
its earlier decision but will incorporate it by reference here. Warden Blades, a nonmedical prison official, is generally entitled to rely on the opinions of medical
professionals with respect to the medical treatment of Roberts. Snow v. McDaniel, 681
F.3d 978, 990 (9th Cir.2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard,
744F.3d 1046 (9th Cir.2014). However, if “a reasonable person would likely determine
[the medical treatment] to be inferior,” the fact that an official is not medically trained
Memorandum Decision – page 2

will not shield that official from liability for deliberate indifference. Snow, 681 F.3d at
986; see also McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474, 483 (7th Cir.2013) (stating that nonmedical personnel may rely on medical opinions of health care professionals unless “they
have a reason to believe (or actual knowledge) that prison doctors or their assistants are
mistreating (or not treating) a prisoner”). Differences in judgment between an inmate and
prison medical personnel regarding appropriate medical diagnosis and treatment are not
enough to establish a deliberate indifference claim. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242
(9th Cir.1989). “[T]o prevail on a claim involving choices between alternative courses of
treatment, a prisoner must show that the chosen course of treatment ‘was medically
unacceptable under the circumstances,’ and was chosen ‘in conscious disregard of an
excessive risk’ to the prisoner's health.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th
Cir.2004).
The record contains no evidence that Warden Blades was unreasonable in relying
on the independent medical experts. There is no evidence that their course of treatment
was medically unacceptable or posed an excessive risk to Roberts. For these reasons, the
Court will grant Warden Blades’ motion for summary judgment. Because he is the last
remaining defendant, the Court will enter a separate Judgment as required by Rule 58(a).

Memorandum Decision – page 3

DATED: March 28, 2016

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Memorandum Decision – page 4