Gunter v. State, 1
| Decision Date | 05 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 736 P.2d 1198,153 Ariz. 386 |
| Parties | Rexford GUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Arizona; Department of Corrections, a division thereof; James Ricketts, Director of the DOC; Sam Lewis, Director of the DOC; John Doe I through V, Defendants-Appellees. 8900. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The appellant, Rexford Gunter, is a prisoner in the custody of the department of corrections. For more than three years, he has suffered from a skin rash. He filed a civil action against the state alleging that it had deliberately or negligently failed to provide him with proper medical treatment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the state. We reverse and remand for trial because Gunter presented a question of disputed fact as to whether the prison authorities refused to give him medication that the doctor had prescribed for him.
While a prisoner in eary 1983, Gunter began to develop a rash. He was seen by at least three--and perhaps as many as five--doctors, who made several diagnoses and prescribed various treatments. The last doctor to treat the condition, Patricia Stapler, M.D., diagnosed the rash as chronic eczema.
In the spring of 1985, Gunter, unhappy with the situation, began to keep a diary of his condition and of the treatment he was receiving. At about the same time, he filed suit against the state and the department of corrections claiming that the state's inaction violated his civil rights, entitling him to damages under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; breached a statutory duty to provide medical care; constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution; and constituted negligence.
The state filed a motion for summary judgment supported by Dr. Stapler's affidavit. The affidavit stated:
I am Patricia Stapler, M.D. and I have personal knowledge of the foregoing facts:
1. I am a physician duly licensed to practice medicine within the State of Arizona and I am employed by the Arizona Department of Corrections at the Arizona State Prison Health Unit in Florence, Arizona.
2. Based on my extensive experience in the specialty field of family practice, I am aware of the standard of care applicable to a medical staff's care and treatment of a patient with a chronic, eczematous, pruritic rash.
3. I have reviewed the prison records relating to the medical care and treatment of inmate Rexford Gunter. Based on my review of these records and my extensive experience with the care and treatment of patients with generalized dermatologic disorders, I am of the professional opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the prison's medical staff care and treatment of Rexford Gunter was in keeping with or higher than the standard of care employed by the medical community at large.
4. After the review of all medical records relating to inmate Rexford Gunter, I am of the opinion that everything reasonable has been undertaken with regard to the Plaintiff's treatment by the prison's medical staff.
In response to the motion, Gunter filed his own affidavit and a copy of the diary he had been keeping. While the affidavit is inartful in that it does not specifically incorporate the diary by reference, it is apparent that the court and the state interpreted the affidavit to incorporate the diary. We therefore compare the diary against Dr. Stapler's affidavit to see if there are any material disputed facts at issue.
The diary contains much that is hearsay and much that is irrelevant. Much of it details complaints about the appellant's treatment, such as references to a failure to call in a specialist or to the inefficacy or danger of a prescribed course of treatment. Dr. Stapler's affidavit refutes these complaints. The appellant does, however, describe a number of incidents where the prison pharmacy sent him less medication, or a weaker strength of medication, than that which had been prescribed. There is nothing in Dr. Stapler's affidavit or in the record to suggest that Dr. Stapler knew anything about the relevant portions of the diary. If, indeed, she was unaware that prescribed medication was not reaching ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkie v. State, 1
...Id. Interference with a prescribed treatment may state a cause of action for such a constitutional violation. Gunter v. State, 153 Ariz. 386, 387, 736 P.2d 1198, 1199 (App.1987). A review of the case law indicates that a constitutional claim may be stated even if a prisoner is subject only ......
-
Zuck v. State
...injury actions, A.R.S. § 12-542(1). See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985); Gunter v. State, 153 Ariz. 386, 736 P.2d 1198 (App.1987). Plaintiff's negligence claim is also subject to the two-year limitation in which to bring personal injury suits. A.R.S. § ......
-
Martinez v. Corr. Corp. of Am.
...¶ 25, 209 P.3d 1059, 1066 (App. 2009) (statutory medical malpractice action brought in superior court), with Gunter v. State, 153 Ariz. 386, 386, 736 P.2d 1198, 1198 (App. 1987) (prisoner action for negligent medical treatment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought in superior court). Martine......
-
Thompson v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections
...that required Thompson to come forth with medical evidence of his own. In accord with our conclusion are Gunter v. Arizona, 153 Ariz. 386, 736 P.2d 1198 (Ariz.App.1987), and Zuck v. Arizona, 159 Ariz. 37, 764 P.2d 772 (Ariz.App.1988). Both cases involved Dr. Stapler affidavits, and both fou......
-
Incompetent Jail and Prison Doctors
...Medical Economics, 69, 126-149. Gullette v. State Through Department of Corrections, 383 So.2d 1287 (La. App. 1980).Gunter v. State, 736 P.2d 1198 (Ariz. App. 1987).Haavisto v. Perpich, 520 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. 1994).Hampton v. Lloren, WL 426951 (Wis. App. 1997).Haney, C. (1998). Riding the pu......