Hall v. Ashley, 79-1008
| Decision Date | 18 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1008,79-1008 |
| Citation | 607 F.2d 789 |
| Parties | Roy Edward HALL, Appellant, v. Lieutenant John ASHLEY, Correctional Officer, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Dept. of Correction, and Dr. Carl Adams, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Gary P. Barket (argued), Barron, Coleman & Barket, Little Rock, Ark., on brief, for appellant.
Neal B. Kirkpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark. (argued), and Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., on brief, for appellees.
Before LAY, STEPHENSON and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is brought by Roy Edward Hall, an Arkansas state prisoner, seeking attorney fees denied by the district court in a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Carl Adams, a physician employed by the Arkansas Department of Corrections. The evidence shows that plaintiff suffers from congenital scoliosis and that he made 121 visits to see Adams because of severe pain. Adams saw him only five times. Only after these 121 visits, and only two weeks before trial, did Dr. Adams refer Hall to an orthopedic surgeon who was under contract to the penitentiary. Plaintiff ultimately consulted an independent orthopedic surgeon. He diagnosed plaintiff's back disease and after the trial performed surgery.
Plaintiff argues, although the jury found he was entitled to no damages, nonetheless, the jury determined he had been unconstitutionally deprived of medical care. He also urges the court erred in denying attorney fees. The case has a peculiar procedural history: based upon the special verdict returned, Verdict Form No. 2, which found that Dr. Adams "did knowingly deny plaintiff adequate medical treatment for a serious medical need," the defendant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court found that the defendant's conduct constituted only negligence but it did not sustain the motion because the effect of the special verdict was to dismiss plaintiff's complaint since no damages were awarded. The defendant did not cross-appeal as to this finding. 1
The sole question presented by plaintiff on appeal is whether, under the form of the verdict submitted, the plaintiff was the "prevailing party," which is necessary under Section 1988 in order to award attorney fees. We find the form of the special verdict along with the instructions erroneous, inconsistent and confusing, such that the issue cannot be decided on appeal. Under the circumstances, we feel in the interest of justice, and under this court's jurisdiction provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2106, the entire cause should be remanded to the district court for a new trial.
The special verdict forms submitted were as follows:
We, the jury, in the above entitled action, unanimously find that defendant Carl Adams did not knowingly deny plaintiff adequate medical treatment for a serious medical need and for dismissal of plaintiff's claim against him.
We, the jury in the above-entitled action, unanimously find that defendant Carl Adams did knowingly deny plaintiff adequate medical treatment for a serious medical need but further find that plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages from defendant Carl Adams and for dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against him.
We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, unanimously find in favor of the plaintiff, Roy Edward Hall, and against the defendant, Carl Adams, and assess the plaintiff's actual damages in the sum of $______.
In construing these three verdict forms it is essential to review in part the court's instructions. The pertinent instruction reads:
If you find defendant Adams did knowingly deny plaintiff adequate medical treatment for a serious medical need, you should then consider whether or not the conduct of defendant Adams was sufficiently harmful to manifest a deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical need and whether or not the conduct of defendant Adams deprived plaintiff of his constitutional right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment or his constitutional right not to be deprived of his liberty without due process of law. You should also consider whether or not defendant Adams was at that time acting under color of law of the State of Arkansas. If you find defendant Adams knowingly denied plaintiff adequate medical treatment but that such conduct did not deprive plaintiff of either his constitutional right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment or his constitutional right not to be deprived of his liberty without due process of law, or that defendant Adams was not at that time acting under color of law of the State of Arkansas, you should complete Verdict Form No. 2, cease your deliberations and return to the courtroom.
It is obvious the instruction is inconsistent and erroneous on its face. 2 The instruction presented a multi-part test. First, the jury was instructed to find whether Adams knowingly denied Hall adequate medical treatment for a serious medical need. Once that hurdle had been overcome, the jury was required to consider whether the conduct of Adams was sufficiently harmful to manifest a deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical need And then whether the conduct of Adams deprived Hall of his constitutional rights.
The proper standard in a Section 1983 medical care case was announced by the Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manor Care, Inc. v. Douglas
...damages were inconsistent and contradictory, a new trial on damages is required.”) (internal citation omitted).See also Hall v. Ashley, 607 F.2d 789, 791 (8th Cir.1979) (remanding for new trial based on fact that “[a]lthough it appears the jury found a constitutional wrong, the ... overall ......
-
Bates v. Jean
...appeal of the inconsistency of the two special verdicts. See Fugitt v. Jones, 549 F.2d 1001, 1005 (5th Cir.1977). See also Hall v. Ashley, 607 F.2d 789 (8th Cir.1979). This case involves the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields federal officials from liability, when they are sued d......
-
West v. Atkins
...to inmate medical needs. Id.; see Morrison v. Washington County, Ala., 700 F.2d 678, 683 (11th Cir.1983). See also Hall v. Ashley, 607 F.2d 789 (8 Cir.1979) (upholding Sec. 1983 deliberate indifference action against orthopedic surgeon operating under contract to prison). Cf. Briley v. Stat......
-
Hurd v. Nolan, 82-2039C(4).
...a finding constitutes "the `unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' proscribed by the eighth amendment." Id., see also Hall v. Ashley, 607 F.2d 789 (8th Cir.1979); Massey v. Hutto, 545 F.2d 45 (8th Cir.1976); Seward v. Hutto, 525 F.2d 1024 (8th Cir. 1975). Plaintiff's proof concerning me......