Toguchi v. Chung

Decision Date10 December 2004
Docket NumberNo. 03-15378.,03-15378.
PartiesHiroshi TOGUCHI, on behalf of himself and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Keane Toguchi, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOON HWANG CHUNG, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Carl M. Varady, Honolulu, HI, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Girard D. Lau, Deputy Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for the defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii; Samuel P. King, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-00763-SPK.

Before: FARRIS, NOONAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge:

We sympathize with the Toguchis on the loss of their son, Keane. However, we agree with the district court that Keane's death was not the result of Dr. Soon Hwang Chung's deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment in favor of Dr. Chung.

I. BACKGROUND

Keane Toguchi (Keane) was incarcerated for most of the period between 1993 and 1998. He was treated by Dr. Chung during his incarceration at the Halawa Correctional Facility (Halawa) in 1997 and 1998. Keane had a lengthy history of mental illness and had been clinically diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, panic disorder, organic brain syndrome, depression, and Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome. Keane also had an extensive history of illicit drug use, including cocaine, crystal methamphetamine (ice), and heroin.

Keane was paroled in April of 1998, but returned to Halawa eight months later, after he violated his parole by testing positive for ice. In fact, Keane had taken ice two days prior to his readmission and had not taken his prescribed medications, including Seroquel, Klonopine, Tranxene, and Zoloft, for five days. Keane was placed under the direct care of Dr. Chung, who kept him in therapeutic lockdown for two weeks in an attempt to stabilize his condition. Dr. Chung prescribed Seroquel, Zoloft, Haldol, and Benadryl, and by December 16, Keane had been stabilized and released into the general population. Five days later, he began to display irrational behaviors, including urinating on the floor. Discontinuing the use of Seroquel and Haldol, Dr. Chung transferred Keane to the mental health module of the prison, and prescribed Trilafon (an antipsychotic) and Congentin to deal with his irrational behaviors.

Two days later, Keane was brought to Dr. Chung after he had been shaking, talking loudly, and moving around throughout the previous night. Dr. Chung reported her observations of Keane at 9:15 a.m. and treated him with Haldol, Cogentin, Benadryl, and Artane. At around 1:20 p.m., Dr. Chung observed Keane acting in a bizarre manner, including walking into walls and rocking on the toilet bowl. Dr. Chung ascribed Keane's irrational behaviors to a likely ice flashback. Dr. Chung considered Keane an imminent threat to himself and ordered him placed in restraints.

Dr. Chung observed Keane for about fifteen minutes after he was restrained and returned every fifteen minutes thereafter. At 2:30 p.m., the doctor noted that Keane had fallen asleep, and was still sleeping at 2:45 p.m. However, at 3:00 p.m., a nurse notified Dr. Chung that Keane had stopped breathing. Attempts to revive Keane failed, and he died shortly thereafter. The medical examiner described the cause of death as follows:

[T]his 37-year-old man died as a result of combined toxic effects of sertraline and diphenhydramine. The blood level of sertraline is in the lethal level and the blood level of diphenhydramine is in the toxic level. These blood levels are attained by ingestion of multiple tablets of the medications. It is not known whether the medications were taken with suicidal intentions or accidentally ingested because of the altered mental status of the decedent.

Keane's parents (the Toguchis) brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison physicians Dr. Sisar Paderes and Dr. Chung alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to Keane's serious medical needs. Dr. Robert C. Marvit and Dr. Wayne R. Snodgrass served as experts on behalf of Dr. Chung. Dr. Marvit concluded that "it would be unrealistic to state that the levels [of Benadryl and Zoloft] in the blood were from the prescribed medications."1 He also opined that "the care and treatment provided to [Keane] by Dr. Soon Hyung Chung was appropriate and met the standard of care for psychiatrists ..." Dr. Snodgrass similarly concluded that "[t]he clinical symptoms and signs exhibited by [Keane] were appropriately interpreted by Dr. Chung to be consistent with withdrawal from methamphetamine" and that the "drug therapy ordered by SH Chung, M.D. was appropriate and indicated."

Dr. Bruce Victor and Dr. Randall Tackett served as experts on behalf of the Toguchis. Dr. Victor concluded that:

Dr. Chung's failure to evaluate [Keane's] actual condition, to conduct a differential diagnosis that would rule out disease or conditions other than `ice flashbacks,' led her to disregard the known risks of harm from the medications she was administering to him in high doses which, in turn, were superimposed upon probable benzodiazipine withdrawal syndrome and WPW [Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome]. Her failure to consider these risks directly and proximately precluded proper treatment of [Keane] and, thereby, eliminated any chance of determining the seriousness of his condition or taking appropriate measures that would have prevented his death.

Dr. Tackett concluded that "[Keane] died from the combined effects of sertarline [sic] and diphenhydramine administered to him by Dr. Chung." Dr. Tackett expressed the view that these drugs, along with Cogentin, were prescribed "without any assessment by Dr. Chung of [Keane's] actual medical condition and without regard for possible withdrawal symptoms that would be affecting his heart rate or potential for arrhythmia."

After considering the evidence submitted by the parties, the district court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion, concluding that there was no triable issue of material fact on the question of whether Keane's death resulted from Dr. Chung's deliberate indifference to his medical needs.2

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Leever v. Carson City, 360 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir.2004). "Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party," we "must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law." Id. (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION
A. "Deliberate Indifference" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
1. General Legal Standard

As with many other prison-generated actions, this case was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and predicated upon a violation of the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. "The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain upon incarcerated individuals under color of law constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment ..." McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.1992) (citation, alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). A violation of the Eighth Amendment occurs when prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's medical needs. See id.

To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner "must satisfy both the objective and subjective components of a two-part test." Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted). First, there must be a demonstration that the prison official deprived the prisoner of the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Id. (citation omitted).3 Second, a prisoner must demonstrate that the prison official "acted with deliberate indifference in doing so." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

A prison official acts with "deliberate indifference... only if the [prison official] knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety." Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir.2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Under this standard, the prison official must not only "be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists," but that person "must also draw the inference." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). "If a [prison official] should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the [official] has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk." Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1188 (citation omitted).4 This "subjective approach" focuses only "on what a defendant's mental attitude actually was." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 839, 114 S.Ct. 1970. "Mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights." McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059 (alteration and citation omitted).

2. The Toguchis' Argument

The Toguchis assert that Dr. Chung was deliberately indifferent to Keane's medical needs in the following ways:

a) She treated Keane with Cogentin when she knew that he had been hospitalized in 1995 for a negative reaction to Cogentin;

b) In diagnosing Keane's condition, she did not consider the psychotic symptoms that could result from replacing his Seroquel prescription with Triafon;

c) She failed to employ emergency treatment to save Keane's life;

d) After Keane was placed into restraints, she failed to assure that he was physically inspected and his vital signs were taken every fifteen minutes;

e) She failed to consider the known risks associated with Klonopin withdrawal, including anxiety, seizures, elevated blood pressure and tachycardia f) She failed to consider the negative effects that could result from the cross-potentiation of Zoloft, Benadryl, and Cogentin; and

g) She failed to conduct...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5707 cases
  • Demonte v. Griffith
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 19 Diciembre 2016
    ...by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it." Id., at 847. Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard." Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2004). "Under this standard, the prison official must not only 'be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn t......
  • Alarcon v. Davey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 9 Mayo 2017
    ...by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it." Id., at 847. Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard." Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2004). "Under this standard, the prison official must not only 'be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn t......
  • Mwasi v. Corcoran State Prison, Case: 1:13-cv-00695-DAD-JLT (PC)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 20 Mayo 2016
    ...Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835 (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319). "Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard." Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2004). "Under this standard, the prison official must not only 'beaware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a ......
  • Reyes v. City of Fresno
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 15 Mayo 2013
    ...(citing McGuckin 974 F.2d at 1060 (internal quotations omitted)). "Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard." Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). Indifference to "medical needs must be substantial. Mere 'indifference,' 'negligence,' or 'medical malpractice' will n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • The Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amensments
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Part IV: The Final Cause Of Constitutional Law Sub-Part Three: Civil War Amendments And Due Process Generally
    • 1 Enero 2007
    ...Larson, 396 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2005). [302] Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). [303] Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. [304] City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hospital, 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983); Gray v. City of Detroit, 399 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2005). [305......
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...about safety because prison’s failure to transfer to protective custody based on non-specif‌ic fear at most negligent); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004) (no 8th Amendment claim where doctor’s medical decisions contributed to prisoner’s death because treatmen......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • 1 Enero 2007
    ...Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969), 1379, 1413-17, 1419-21, 1445, 1476 Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004), Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1, 102 S.Ct. 2977, 73 L.Ed.2d 563 (1982), 1158 Tomic v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria, 442 F.3d 1036 (7th......
  • Toguchi v. Chung.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 33, February 2005
    • 1 Febrero 2005
    ...Appeals Court MEDICATION DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004). The estate of a prisoner who died in custody brought a civil rights action under the Eighth Amendment, alleging that a physician was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. The district ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT