Hayes v. Conway
| Decision Date | 14 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 33050.,33050. |
| Citation | 163 P.3d 1215,144 Idaho 503 |
| Parties | Michael T. HAYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeff CONWAY, Warden, Idaho Correctional Center; Evelyn Hernandez, Deputy Warden, Idaho Correctional Center; Susan Bajovich, Medical Administrator, Idaho Correctional Center; and Dr. Huff, Dentist, Idaho Correctional Center, Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Michael T. Hayes, Boise, pro se appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Paul R. Panther, Deputy Attorney General; Naylor Hales, P.C., Boise, for respondents.
Michael T. Hayes appeals from the district court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
In April 2004, Hayes was incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Department of Corrections. He was given an initial dental exam which established he had a bridge spanning upper teeth numbers 3-12 and the presence of gingival disease and minimal calculus (tartar). At the time, when filling out his medical history, Hayes indicated his chief complaint was bleeding gums and that he had a heart condition, rheumatism, and arthritis. He also relayed that he often went longer than one day without brushing his teeth. Dr. Tim Huff, the dentist who would later examine him, indicated Hayes entered the Department of Corrections with generally poor oral health.
Later that month, Hayes was transferred to a facility operated by Idaho Correctional Center (ICC) where, on September 3, 2004, he submitted a Health Services Request form (HSR) complaining of a "severe gum infection." On September 7, he was seen by a nurse in the ICC medical department who referred him to a dental hygienist for an evaluation and recommendation as to course of treatment. The next day, Dr. Steven Garret, M.D. examined Hayes and requested that he be seen by a dentist. Also that day, Hayes was seen by a dental hygienist who took x-rays of several of his teeth, and Hayes submitted a second HSR requesting that his teeth be cleaned. He was notified by the dental office on September 9 that he was placed on a list to receive cleaning.
On September 28, Dr. Garrett noted that Hayes was to have his teeth cleaned and that prior to the cleaning he should receive a dosage of amoxicillin due to his heart condition. Subsequently, on September 28, September 29, October 5, October 20, November 3, 2004, and January 25, 2005, Hayes missed scheduled cleaning appointments after arriving late. Hayes contends his tardiness was due to facility lockdowns and other security measures which interfered with his ability to reach the clinic. His late arrivals were especially problematic because amoxicillin must be taken at least an hour before cleaning commences. On March 23, 2005, Hayes's teeth were cleaned, and they were cleaned again on August 29, 2005. This time lapse between cleanings is in accordance with the standard of care given individuals with similar dental conditions outside the incarceration context. He will continue to be scheduled for cleaning every five to six months upon his request.
Also while incarcerated at ICC, Hayes complained of toothaches in teeth numbers 2, 14, and 15. On March 21, 2005, Hayes filed an HSR for "Dental Emergency tooth Pain" and during his cleaning several days later, complained to the hygienist that tooth number 15 was painful. X-rays were taken of teeth numbers 14 and 15. The next day, Dr. Huff examined Hayes and his x-rays and noted there were cavities in both teeth. However, there was no indication Hayes was in extreme pain, nor were there abscesses, bleeding, or swollen gums around the teeth and accordingly, Dr. Huff decided it was not a dental emergency and placed Hayes on the waiting list for dental treatment.
On May 23, 2005, Hayes filed an HSR complaining of tooth pain on both sides of his mouth. He was examined by Dr. Huff three days later, who noted that Hayes was now complaining of pain in tooth number 2 in addition to teeth numbers 14 and 15. Again, Dr. Huff determined there were no indications of a dental emergency and added Hayes to the waiting list for treatment on tooth number 2.
Hayes filed subsequent HSR's on August 8 and 12, 2005, continuing to complain about his teeth and inquire as to treatment for his pain. He was examined by Dr. Huff on August 12 and again determined not be suffering a dental emergency. Nevertheless, the dentist filled tooth number 2 before Hayes reached the top of the waiting list. On September 6 and 13, 2005, Hayes filed several HSR's in which he continued to complain of tooth pain. In response, on September 22, 2005, Dr. Huff filled teeth numbers 14 and 15, again before Hayes had reached the top of the treatment waiting list.
All three filled teeth are candidates for future root canals or extractions due to the depth of the decay and fillings. Because of significant complications which exist, Dr. Huff believes the long term prognosis for saving the teeth is "questionable at best." ICC policy disallows the administration of root canals for molars unless the treatment is medically necessary, and thus, since teeth numbers 2, 14, and 15 are molars for which Dr. Huff has determined root canals are not currently medically necessary, should the fillings fail, the teeth will be extracted. Such a procedure would require the removal of Hayes's bridge, a situation that is problematic because of his desire to maintain the bridge.1
Prior to the summer of 2005, Hayes had been purchasing new toothbrushes on a monthly basis, allegedly because they wore out. However, due to a security incident in another facility where a toothbrush was modified to make a weapon, toothbrushes were taken out of the ICC commissary for approximately two months during the summer of 2005 while a safer style of toothbrush was located. After not being able to purchase a new toothbrush for several weeks, on August 8, 2005 Hayes filed an HSR requesting one. A dental assistant responded to his request, notifying him the dental office did not give out toothbrushes and directing him to his unit sergeant. The sergeant would not supply him a toothbrush because he determined Hayes was not indigent. By the end of August 2005, Hayes was again able to purchase toothbrushes through the commissary.
Hayes has also experienced pain in a front tooth, number 8. A previous root canal on the tooth failed, and x-rays show there is no existing bone around the tooth. Dr. Huff believes the tooth would fall out if not for being under the bridge, but extraction of the tooth is problematic because it would be difficult to maintain the integrity of Hayes's bridge if it were removed to allow extraction of the tooth. Per ICC policy, if the bridge were to be damaged, Hayes would not receive a new one, but would be given alternate treatment to ensure he maintained his masticating ability. Hayes has expressed a desire to maintain the integrity of the bridge.
On November 23, 2005, Hayes filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging the respondents were deliberately indifferent to his dental care needs and thereby violated his Eighth Amendment rights.2 The respondents filed a motion to dismiss and/or a motion for summary judgment. After briefing by the parties, the district court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition. Hayes now appeals.
In this case, the district court considered affidavits filed by Hayes, Dr. Huff, and Darold Breuer, the supervisor of ICC commissary, when it granted the motion to dismiss Hayes's petition for habeas corpus relief. When a court considers matters outside the pleadings, such motion must be treated as a motion for summary judgment. Duvalt v. Sonnen, 137 Idaho 548, 552, 50 P.3d 1043, 1047 (Ct.App.2002); Hellickson v. Jenkins, 118 Idaho 273, 276, 796 P.2d 150, 153 (Ct. App.1990). Summary judgment under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) is proper only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, we exercise free review in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Duvalt, 137 Idaho at 552, 50 P.3d at 1047; Edwards v. Conchemco, Inc., 111 Idaho 851, 852, 727 P.2d 1279, 1280 (Ct.App.1986). When assessing a motion for summary judgment, all controverted facts are to be liberally construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Furthermore, the trial court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party resisting the motion. G & M Farms v. Funk Irrigation Co., 119 Idaho 514, 517, 808 P.2d 851, 854 (1991); Duvalt, 137 Idaho at 552, 50 P.3d at 1047; Sanders v. Kuna Joint School Dist., 125 Idaho 872, 874, 876 P.2d 154, 156 (Ct. App.1994).
The appropriate inquiry when an inmate alleges that prison officials failed to attend to a serious medical need is whether the officials exhibited deliberate indifference. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5, 112 S.Ct. 995, 998, 117 L.Ed.2d 156, 164 (1992); Duvalt, 137 Idaho at 552, 50 P.3d at 1047; Clemens v. State, 112 Idaho 638, 639, 733 P.2d at 1263, 1264 (Ct.App.1987). A determination of deliberate indifference involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the prison's response to that need. See United States ex rel. Walker v. Fayette County, Pennsylvania, 599 F.2d 573, 575 (3d Cir.1979). Serious medical needs include those diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or those that are so obvious even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention. Duvalt, 137 Idaho at 552, 50 P.3d at 1047.
To establish deliberate indifference in a prison's response to an inmate's serious medical need, there must have been a purposeful act or failure to act on the part of prison officials. Estelle v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O-kel-ly v. Henry
...outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment. Hayes v. Conway, 144 Idaho 503, 506-07, 163 P.3d 1215, 121819 (Ct. App. 2007); Duvalt v. Sonnen, 137 Idaho 548, 552, 50 P.3d 1043, 1047 (Ct. App. 2002). Summary judgment pursuant to Idaho R......
- Williams v. Hollinshead (In re Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus)
-
Hayes v. Kessler
...Hayes’ health. See Hudson v. McMillian , 503 U.S. 1, 5, 112 S.Ct. 995, 998, 117 L.Ed.2d 156, 165 (1992) ; Hayes v. Conway , 144 Idaho 503, 507, 163 P.3d 1215, 1219 (Ct. App. 2007). A determination of deliberate indifference involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the pri......