Estate of Hurtado v. Smith.
No. 23-1354. 10/22/2024. D.Colo. Judge Kelly. Eighth Amendment—Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs—Inference of Conscious Disregard—Summary Judgment.
October 22, 2024
Hurtado was an inmate at Buena Vista Correctional Facility. He was seen at the Buena Vista health services clinic for a perineal abscess and then transferred to the emergency room at the Heart of the Rockies Regional Medical Center. A pelvic CT scan showed the abscess, and Dr. Smith performed a diagnostic needle aspiration. Based on his examination, Dr. Smith determined that a drainage procedure was not necessary at the time. He prescribed oral antibiotics and pain medication and told Hurtado to contact a physician if his condition worsened. Later that day, Hurtado returned to the emergency room with intense pain. He initially had a negative sepsis screen, but his second sepsis screen was positive, and he underwent surgery to drain the abscess (I&D operation). Following his surgeries, Hurtado was transferred to Memorial Hospital, where he was diagnosed with liver disease, kidney failure, and complications from the abscess. Two weeks later, his family elected to pursue comfort care, and Hurtado was removed from life support and died. Hurtado’s estate (the estate) brought this action against Dr. Smith alleging that he acted with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in treating Hurtado’s abscess because he did not immediately drain the abscess or prescribe intravenous antibiotics. The district court found that a factual dispute existed as to whether Hurtado’s need was “sufficiently serious” under the objective component of deliberate indifference, but it concluded that no genuine dispute of material fact existed as to the subjective component—whether Dr. Smith knew of but disregarded a significant risk to Hurtado’s health or safety. The district court further found that even if Dr. Smith’s diagnosis and subsequent treatment was incorrect, it was not so unreasonable as to meet the standard for deliberate indifference. The district court granted summary judgment to Dr. Smith.
On appeal, the estate argued that a genuine dispute of material fact existed regarding whether Dr. Smith knowingly or recklessly disregarded the risk involved in Hurtado’s treatment, asserting that Dr. Smith conceded that the treatment was inadequate for Hurtado’s abscess. A claim of deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment must satisfy both an objective and a subjective component. Under the objective component, the alleged deprivation must present a substantial risk of serious harm. Under the subjective component, the doctor must exhibit knowledge of and disregard for an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. A jury may infer conscious disregard if a doctor responds to an obvious risk with clearly unreasonable treatment. Contrary to the estate’s argument, Dr. Smith never conceded that he knew he did not provide necessary treatment for Hurtado’s abscess. Rather, he testified that he would have performed an I&D operation only if he found an abscess with a liquefied pocket, which he did not. Thus, there was no factual dispute on this issue and no record evidence from which a jury could have inferred conscious disregard.
The estate also argued that the jury could have inferred conscious disregard from Dr. Smith’s “patently unreasonable” response to an “obvious risk.” Here, however, the emergency room nurse classified Hurtado’s condition as nonemergent, and after Dr. Smith prescribed antibiotics to Hurtado he was discharged from the hospital in “good and stable condition.” Further, Hurtado reported that his pain level had decreased before he left the hospital. And while the testimony of the estate’s experts about what Dr. Smith should have done may support medical negligence, it did not create an issue of fact as to deliberate indifference.
The judgment was affirmed.