and plaintiff was sent to Terre Haute by bus on February 29,
1980. He is currently confined at the F.C.I., El Reno.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is supported by an
affidavit from Gora, attached to which are the medical records
maintained on plaintiff during his confinement at MCC. Gora
states in his affidavit that, in addition to the month
plaintiff spent in the hospital undergoing evaluation for his
heart condition, plaintiff was examined and treated by five
doctors on ten separate occasions at MCC. Plaintiff's medical
records further indicate that physician's assistants routinely
cared for and administered medication to plaintiff on a
regular basis and that on February 1, 1980, a physician
sanctioned plaintiff's transfer by bus with the proviso that
plaintiff be permitted to keep his leg elevated during the
journey. Defendants contend that the affidavit and medical
records belie plaintiff's allegations and establish that
plaintiff was afforded frequent and extensive treatment
throughout the duration of his stay at MCC.
In order to prevail on an eighth amendment claim challenging
the adequacy of medical treatment, plaintiff must allege and
prove "acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50
L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Allegations of negligence or mere
inadvertence will not suffice under the deliberate
indifference standard. A prisoner must show intent either to
deny or unreasonably delay access to needed medical care or
the wanton infliction of unnecessary pain by prison personnel.
Id. at 104-105, 97 S.Ct. at 291-92. Viewing the
record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court
cannot find that defendants acted with the deliberate
indifference required by the constitutional standard
enunciated in Estelle.
Plaintiff does not allege, nor does the record reflect, that
defendants acted in such a way as to deny or delay his access
to medical treatment. The requests which plaintiff directed to
defendants complained not of a denial of medical care, but of
the incorrectness of the treatment prescribed for him. Prison
medical officers have broad discretion to determine the nature
and character of medical treatment afforded to inmates.
Thomas v. Pate, 493 F.2d 151, 157 (7th Cir.),
cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879, 95 S.Ct. 143, 42 L.Ed.2d
119 (1974). A prisoner's dissatisfaction with a doctor's
prescribed course of treatment does not give rise to a
constitutional claim unless the medical treatment provided is
"so blatantly inappropriate as to evidence intentional
mistreatment likely to seriously aggravate the prisoner's
condition." Id. at 158; see also Ferranti v.
Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 891 (1st Cir. 1980); Bass v.
Sullivan, 550 F.2d 229, 232 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 434 U.S. 864, 98 S.Ct. 195, 54 L.Ed.2d 138
The Court need not decide, however, whether plaintiff's
prescribed treatment was "blatantly appropriate." Gora and
Luther are prison administrators, not licensed medical
practitioners. Lacking the requisite expertise, they must
necessarily place their confidence in the reports of the
prison doctors whenever an inmate disputes a medical opinion
as to what treatment is necessary and proper. Defendants here
clearly deferred to the professional medical judgment of the
doctors attending plaintiff with respect to both the propriety
of his treatment and the lack of any medical necessity for
making special transportation arrangements to accomplish his
transfer to another correctional facility. Defendants'
reliance upon the opinion of their medical staff as to the
proper course of treatment for plaintiff is sufficient to
insulate them from any liability under the eighth amendment.
See McCracken v. Jones, 562 F.2d 22, 24 (10th Cir.
Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment is
granted and this action is dismissed. It is so ordered.