JANET C. HALL, District Judge.
On January 27, 2017, the plaintiff, Michael Schibi ("Schibi"), a former inmate of the Connecticut Department of Correction, filed a Complaint
On December 29, 2017, the defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment along with a Memorandum of Law and supporting exhibits. Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc No. 25). Dr. Wu argues that he is entitled to summary judgment because the evidence submitted shows that he and other officials in the Department of Corrected provided adequate treatment for Schibi's medical condition. Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defs.' Mem.") (Doc. No. 25-1) at 3-7. The remaining defendants argue they were not personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivations.
For the following reasons, the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 25) is granted.
In a motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the moving party to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that it is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law" and is "genuine" if "a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party" based on it.
When a motion for summary judgment is supported by documentary evidence and sworn affidavits and "demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact," the nonmoving party "must come forward with specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact."
In reviewing the record, the court must "construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor."
Schibi has been incarcerated in the Connecticut Department of Corrections since 2010. Defs.' Ex. 1 (Doc. No. 25-3). Dr. Wu is a licensed physician in the state of Connecticut and worked as the Director of Medical Services at UConn Health from June 2012 to March 2017. Defendants' Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement ("Defs.' 56(a)1 Stmt.") at ¶¶ 1-2. He chaired the Utilization Review Committee and co-chaired the Hepatitis C Utilization Review Board at UConn.
On December 5, 2013, correctional medical staff performed a Hepatitis C screening test on Schibi. Defs.' 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 12. Pursuant to Hepatitis C treatment guidelines available at the time, Schibi needed to be monitored with serial liver function tests for at least six months to establish chronicity and evaluated for immunity to Hepatitis A and B.
In August 2014, Schibi brought a medical habeas corpus Petition in state court. Defs.' 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 8. One of the issues asserted in the petition was a demand for Hepatitis C treatment. Defs.' 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 8; Compl. at ¶ 12. Schibi later withdrew his Petition. Defs.' 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 9; Defs.' Ex. 2 (Doc No. 25-4).
On June 15, 2015, Schibi met the criteria for consideration of treatment for chronic Hepatitis C infection. Defs.' 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 15. He was classified as genotype 4, a less common form of Hepatitis C that is more difficult to treat, and his viral load before starting therapy was 131,000 IU/ml, a relatively low number.
Schibi took Epclusa daily for a twelve-week period until November 11, 2016. Defs.' 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 19. According to Dr. Wu, Schibi tolerated the medication very well with no adverse effects. Wu Decl. at ¶ 12. Schibi denied experiencing headaches, fatigue, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fevers, or skin rashes.
Dr. Wu argues that he is entitled to summary judgment because Schibi has not presented any evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find that Wu or any of the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical condition. Wu further contends that his evidence "indicates that Department of Correction staff . . . appropriately treated [Schibi]" for his Hepatitis C. Defs.' Mem. at 6. The remaining defendants argue that there is insufficient evidence of their personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation.
Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need occurs when an official knows that an inmate faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.
Moreover, "[i]t is well-established that mere disagreement over the proper treatment does not create a constitutional claim. So long as the treatment given is adequate, the fact that a prisoner might prefer a different treatment does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation."
In their Motion for Summary Judgment, the defendants do not attempt to establish that Schibi has not satisfied the objective prong of the deliberate indifference standard. They do argue, however, that they were not "`subjectively' indifferent to the plaintiff's health or safety." Defs.' Mem. at 4 (quoting
Schibi, on the other hand, has not presented any evidence as to the defendants' states of mind.
Because Schibi has chosen not to present any evidence to the contrary, no reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants violated his constitutional rights.
The defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 25) is
The defendants' reliance on
Nevertheless, this court need not apply the distinct Fourteenth Amendment standard to Schibi's deliberate indifference claim because, at all relevant times during which the events giving rise to his Complaint occurred, Schibi was a sentenced prisoner, not a pretrial detainee. See Compl. at ¶ 5. The delay in treatment of which he complains must, therefore, be analyzed under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
