×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Suit over Door Injury Medical Co-Pay Dismissed
The plaintiff alleged that he was injured when a metal door closed on him
and that he waited 90 minutes for medical attention.
The claim about the door is dismissed as constituting only negligence.
The medical care claim is dismissed for lack of proof of deliberate
indifference. The plaintiff was taken to the emergency room, where he got
pain medication and crutches; he was sent to an orthopedic surgeon the next
day for additional medication and a leg immobilizer and was told to stay
off the leg. Then he was prescribed physical therapy. The plaintiff fails
to show that his condition warranted prompter treatment or that the failure
to receive it "exasperated [sic] or aggravated" his injuries.
Deducting money from the plaintiff's prison account for medical services
rendered did not violate his rights. At 1114: "Prisoners have a property
interest in the funds in their prison accounts." The plaintiff does not
allege a procedural due process claim. As to substantive due process
(1115): "Deducting payments from a prisoner's inmate trust account for
medical services rendered does not appear to be an arbitrary or wrongful
government action. States may decide who should pay for the medical care
of inmates." Nor is there an Eighth Amendment prohibition on such fees as
long as the prisoner receives the care.
At 1116: "Prisoners have no constitutional right to have their medication
dispensed by a licensed medical practitioner. Federal law, furthermore,
does not require that medication be dispensed solely by licensed
practitioners." See: Breakiron v. Neal, 166 F.Supp.2d 1110 (N.D.Tex. 2001).
and that he waited 90 minutes for medical attention.
The claim about the door is dismissed as constituting only negligence.
The medical care claim is dismissed for lack of proof of deliberate
indifference. The plaintiff was taken to the emergency room, where he got
pain medication and crutches; he was sent to an orthopedic surgeon the next
day for additional medication and a leg immobilizer and was told to stay
off the leg. Then he was prescribed physical therapy. The plaintiff fails
to show that his condition warranted prompter treatment or that the failure
to receive it "exasperated [sic] or aggravated" his injuries.
Deducting money from the plaintiff's prison account for medical services
rendered did not violate his rights. At 1114: "Prisoners have a property
interest in the funds in their prison accounts." The plaintiff does not
allege a procedural due process claim. As to substantive due process
(1115): "Deducting payments from a prisoner's inmate trust account for
medical services rendered does not appear to be an arbitrary or wrongful
government action. States may decide who should pay for the medical care
of inmates." Nor is there an Eighth Amendment prohibition on such fees as
long as the prisoner receives the care.
At 1116: "Prisoners have no constitutional right to have their medication
dispensed by a licensed medical practitioner. Federal law, furthermore,
does not require that medication be dispensed solely by licensed
practitioners." See: Breakiron v. Neal, 166 F.Supp.2d 1110 (N.D.Tex. 2001).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Breakiron v. Neal
| Year | 2001 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 166 F.Supp.2d 1110 (N.D.Tex. 2001) |
| Level | District Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
PERRY RICHARD BREAKIRON, ID # 09528, Plaintiff, vs. CURTIS NEAL, et al., Defendants.
No. 3:00-CV-2155-H
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION
166 F. Supp. 2d 1110; 2001 U.S. Dist.
May 8, 2001, Decided
May 8, 2001, Filed; May 9, 2001, Entered
PRIOR HISTORY: Breakiron v. Neal, 166 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 2001 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Tex., Apr. 17, 2001)
DISPOSITION: [**1] Plaintiff's complaint dismissed with prejudice as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
COUNSEL: PERRY RICHARD BREAKIRON, plaintiff, Pro se, Greenville, TX USA.
JUDGES: Barefoot Sanders, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY: Barefoot Sanders
OPINION: [*1111]
ORDER
After reviewing the objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and conducting a de novo review of those parts of the Findings and Conclusions to which objections have been made, I am of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.
ENTERED this 8 day of MAY, 2001.
Barefoot Sanders
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
JUDGMENT
This action came on for consideration by the Court, and the issues having been duly considered and a decision duly rendered,
It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
2. The Clerk shall transmit a true copy of this Order and the Order [**2] accepting the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge to plaintiff.
SIGNED this 8 day of MAY, 2001.
Barefoot Sanders
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
No. 3:00-CV-2155-H
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION
166 F. Supp. 2d 1110; 2001 U.S. Dist.
May 8, 2001, Decided
May 8, 2001, Filed; May 9, 2001, Entered
PRIOR HISTORY: Breakiron v. Neal, 166 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 2001 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Tex., Apr. 17, 2001)
DISPOSITION: [**1] Plaintiff's complaint dismissed with prejudice as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
COUNSEL: PERRY RICHARD BREAKIRON, plaintiff, Pro se, Greenville, TX USA.
JUDGES: Barefoot Sanders, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY: Barefoot Sanders
OPINION: [*1111]
ORDER
After reviewing the objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and conducting a de novo review of those parts of the Findings and Conclusions to which objections have been made, I am of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.
ENTERED this 8 day of MAY, 2001.
Barefoot Sanders
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
JUDGMENT
This action came on for consideration by the Court, and the issues having been duly considered and a decision duly rendered,
It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
1. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
2. The Clerk shall transmit a true copy of this Order and the Order [**2] accepting the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge to plaintiff.
SIGNED this 8 day of MAY, 2001.
Barefoot Sanders
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE