Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Patrick K. GIBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edith KROHA, ARNP,Washington State Dept of Corrections, Clallam Bay Correctional Center (DOC), Defendant-Appellee, Washington State Department of Corrections; et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM **
Patrick Gibson appeals pro se from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Edith Kroha on the ground that she was entitled to qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court correctly concluded that no clearly established law put Kroha on notice that she violated the Eighth Amendment when she delayed submitting information about Gibson's work-related hernia to the Department of Labor and Industries. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (leaving to the discretion of the lower courts which prong of the qualified immunity analysis to address first). A right is clearly established only where “the defendants should have known that their specific actions were unconstitutional given the specific facts under review.” Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). It is “not indisputably unconstitutional” to treat a reducible hernia without offering surgery where treatments like monitoring, a hernia belt, medication, and behavioral changes are offered. Id. at 1093–94.
Here, Kroha did not recommend surgery after diagnosing Gibson with a reducible and unincarcerated hernia; instead, she advised him to lift no more than ten pounds, reviewed the proper lifting technique, and instructed him to return if his symptoms worsened. Gibson did not seek further hernia treatment at the health care unit until the paperwork omission had been corrected, and at his second visit, his hernia remained reducible and unincarcerated. Because surgery was neither a recommended treatment nor one Gibson was entitled to receive at the time, it was not indisputably unconstitutional for Kroha to delay paperwork that would have been required for surgery. See Hamby, 821 F.3d at 1093–94.
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-35697
Decided: August 06, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)