Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 179 views

    Baxter Vinson v. Alan Walls, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Baxter Vinson sued prison medical staff alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court found that a jury could conclude the medical staff were deliberately indifferent based on evidence that they knew Vinson's intestine was protruding from his abdomen after self-mutilation, recognized this was a life-threatening emergency, but withheld or delayed treatment by restraining him for hours. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for the medical staff, finding a jury could find they acted with deliberate indifference to Vinson's health.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Baxter Vinson v. Alan Walls, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    179 views4 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Baxter Vinson sued prison medical staff alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court found that a jury could conclude the medical staff were deliberately indifferent based on evidence that they knew Vinson's intestine was protruding from his abdomen after self-mutilation, recognized this was a life-threatening emergency, but withheld or delayed treatment by restraining him for hours. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for the medical staff, finding a jury could find they acted with deliberate indifference to Vinson's health.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-04-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6576

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case in which Baxter Vinson sued prison medical staff alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court found that a jury could conclude the medical staff were deliberately indifferent based on evidence that they knew Vinson's intestine was protruding from his abdomen after self-mutilation, recognized this was a life-threatening emergency, but withheld or delayed treatment by restraining him for hours. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for the medical staff, finding a jury could find they acted with deliberate indifference to Vinson's health.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    179 views4 pages

    Baxter Vinson v. Alan Walls, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Baxter Vinson sued prison medical staff alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court found that a jury could conclude the medical staff were deliberately indifferent based on evidence that they knew Vinson's intestine was protruding from his abdomen after self-mutilation, recognized this was a life-threatening emergency, but withheld or delayed treatment by restraining him for hours. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for the medical staff, finding a jury could find they acted with deliberate indifference to Vinson's health.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-6576

    BAXTER FELIX VINSON,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ALAN WALLS, Doctor; KAREN MCCULLOUGH; MARIE SHERMAN, Nurse,
    Defendants - Appellants,
    and
    SHARONDA SUTTON; LARRY CARTLEDGE; ROBERT POILETMAN, MD,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
    Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
    District Judge. (0:10-cv-00847-CMC)

    Argued:

    March 26, 2014

    Decided:

    April 16, 2014

    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,


    Senior Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    ARGUED: Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia,


    South Carolina, for Appellants. James Bernice Moore, III, Scott
    Christopher Evans, BELL LEGAL GROUP, Georgetown, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    ON BRIEF: James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South
    Carolina, for Appellants.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Baxter Felix Vinson, Jr. (Vinson), a state prisoner housed
    in

    the

    South

    Carolina

    Department

    of

    Corrections

    (the

    SCDC),

    brought this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against Dr. Alan Walls,


    M.D.,

    Karen

    McCullough,

    L.P.N.,

    and

    Marie

    Sherman,

    R.N.

    (collectively the Appellants), among others not relevant in this


    appeal,

    alleging,

    deliberately

    inter

    indifferent

    alia,
    to

    that

    his

    violation of the Eighth Amendment.

    the

    serious

    Appellants
    medical

    needs

    were
    in

    At the time of the incident

    in question, March 7-8, 2008, the Appellants were employees of


    the SCDC.
    the

    The crux of Vinsons Eighth Amendment claim against

    Appellants

    is:

    (1)

    the

    Appellants

    knew

    that

    Vinsons

    intestine was protruding from his abdomen following his selfmutilation; (2) the Appellants recognized that this condition
    was a life threatening medical emergency while Vinson was housed
    in a holding cell; and (3) even though the Appellants recognized
    that

    Vinsons

    condition

    was

    life

    threatening

    medical

    emergency, they withheld or unreasonably delayed treatment by


    placing him in a restraint chair for several hours.
    The
    entitled

    district
    to

    court

    qualified

    held

    that

    immunity

    on

    the

    Appellants

    Vinsons

    Eighth

    were

    not

    Amendment

    claim against them because a jury could conclude, based on the


    evidence reviewed in the light most favorable to Vinson, that
    the Appellants were deliberately indifferent to Vinsons serious
    - 3 -

    medical needs.

    See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994)

    (It is enough [to establish Eighth Amendment liability] that


    the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a
    substantial risk [to inmate health or safety].).

    Accordingly,

    the district court denied the Appellants request for summary


    judgment on Vinsons Eighth Amendment claim against them.

    The

    Appellants challenge this ruling on appeal.


    Having

    reviewed

    the

    parties

    submissions,

    the

    district

    courts opinion, and the applicable law, and having heard oral
    argument, we conclude that the district court correctly denied
    the Appellants request for summary judgment on Vinsons Eighth
    Amendment claim against them.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the

    reasoning of the district courts comprehensive opinion.


    v.

    Sutton,

    C/A

    No.

    0:10-847-CMC-PJG,

    2013

    WL

    980267

    Vinson
    (D.S.C.

    March 13, 2013).


    AFFIRMED

    - 4 -

    You might also like