William Harris v. Ashley Trafficante, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania overruled William Harris’s objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted oral surgeon Russell Wible’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that Harris had not presented sufficient competent evidence to support an inference of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. The court adopted the report and recommendation as augmented and entered judgment for Wible.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to produce competent and reliable evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Wible acted with deliberate indifference. Wible's examination, professional assessment, and recommendation for follow-up treatment did not support an inference of the requisite subjective deliberate-indifference state of mind.
2. Summary judgment for Wible was appropriate because Plaintiff failed to identify sufficient cognizable evidence creating a material factual dispute on deliberate indifference, an element on which Plaintiff would bear the burden at trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff identified sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute that Defendant Wible acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
2. Whether Plaintiff's disagreement with Wible's diagnosis and treatment decision, without competent expert or other reliable evidence of a deviation from professional standards, could withstand summary judgment.

Disposition

other