The magistrate judge erred in recommending summary judgment on plaintiff's complaint about having his teeth drilled without anesthesia on the ground that the plaintiff must have consented to the treatment since his cooperation was necessary; the plaintiff testified that he was forcefully held down. However, the plaintiff's serious medical need was for tooth repair, not for anesthesia, and his complaint is merely a disagreement with the medical treatment provided (i.e., drilling without anesthesia). At 651: "Dental treatment anesthesia is a relatively modern convenience."
This is a remarkable instance of a court's seizing upon any excuse to dismiss a prisoner's claim. See: Bout v. Bolden, 22 F.Supp.2d 646 (E.D.Mich. 1998).
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
Bout v. Bolden
|Cite||22 F.Supp.2d 646 (E.D.Mich. 1998)|