Faye Strain, et al. v. Vic Regalado, et al.

Tulsa, Oklahoma civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference theory.



The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to a pretrial detainee's serious medical needs. Disagreement about course of treatment or mere negligence in administering treatment do not amount to a constitutional violation. Rather, to state a claim for deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must allege that an official acted (or failed to act) in an objectively unreasonable manner and with subjective awareness of the risk. Indeed, the word deliberate makes a subjective component inherent in the claim.



Pretrial detainee Thomas Pratt exhibited alcohol withdrawal symptoms while in a county jail. Healthcare providers diagnosed and treated Mr. Pratt's symptoms, but their course of treatment proved ineffective. Plaintiff Faye Strain, as Mr. Pratt's guardian, sued. Although Plaintiff's alleged facts suggest that Defendants may have underestimated the extent of Mr. Pratt's symptoms, Plaintiff's allegations do not rise to the high level of deliberate indifference. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's federal claims, as well as its decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.



* * *



CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. The case concerns a claim of deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment brought by a pretrial detainee. The court had to determine whether the health care providers acted (or failed to act) in an objectively unreasonable manner and with subjective awareness of the risk to the inmate's health, which caused permanent disability. The court reinforced the standard of deliberate indifference, including both an objective and subjective component, and confirmed the dismissal of the federal claims.



CIVIL PROCEDURE. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION. Based on the dismissal of the federal claims, the case explores the district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The court concluded discretion was not abused in this instance.



Key Paragraphs



Highlight key paragraphs



"...To state a cognizable claim, Plaintiff "must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.", [...] ,To establish the objective component, "the alleged deprivation must be 'sufficiently serious' to constitute a deprivation of constitutional dimension.","A medical need is [objectively] serious if it is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.",The subjective component requires Plaintiff to establish that a medical "official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and [s]he must also draw the inference."...”



Key Phrases Deliberate indifference. Fourteenth Amendment. Alcohol withdrawal. Pretrial detainee. Medical needs.

Case dismissed.



Affirmed