Mary E. Petersen v. Denny Kaemingk, No. 12-3839 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - Prisoner Civil Rights. With respect to plaintiff's claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs, there is no evidence that the prison-official and nurse defendants had knowledge of plaintiff's medical problems; as to the remaining defendants, the district court did not err in granting them summary judgment as record showed plaintiff received repeated attention for the condition and that defendants exercised independent medical judgment regarding the proper course of treatment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3839 ___________________________ Mary E. Petersen lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Denny Kaemingk; Tim Reisch; Duane Russell; Brenda Hyde; Dr. Buron Lindbloom; Darcy McClelland; Nikki Gossman; Melissa Simons; Judith Stout lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Pierre ____________ Submitted: August 29, 2013 Filed: September 4, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mary E. Petersen appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which she claimed that defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. Upon de novo review, 1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. see Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009), and careful consideration of Petersen s arguments on appeal,2 we find no basis for reversal. There is no evidence that the prison-official and nurse defendants were personally involved in the treatment decisions at issue, or that some defendants even knew of Petersen s medical problems. See Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 981 (8th Cir. 2011) (general responsibility for supervising prison is insufficient to establish personal involvement); Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (prima facie case of deliberate indifference requires demonstrating that inmate suffered from objectively serious medical need that defendants knew of but deliberately disregarded); Meloy v. Bachmeier, 302 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2002) (prison officials cannot substitute their judgment for medical professional s prescription). As to the remaining defendants, we agree with the district court that the record does not establish deliberate indifference. Rather, the record reflects repeated attention to Petersen s medical condition and the exercise of independent medical judgment as to the proper course of her treatment. See Popoalii, 512 F.3d at 499 (deliberate indifference is akin to criminal recklessness, which demands more than negligent conduct); Meuir v. Greene County Jail Employees, 487 F.3d 1115, 1118-19 (8th Cir. 2007) (prison doctors remain free to exercise independent medical judgment); Vaughan v. Lacey, 49 F.3d 1344, 1346 (8th Cir. 1995) (disagreement between physicians over proper course of treatment is not actionable under § 1983).3 The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and we deny Petersen s motion for copies. ______________________________ 2 We do not consider Petersen s new allegations, arguments, or claims, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004); material that is not contained in the summary judgment record, see McCleary v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co., 682 F.3d 1116, 1120 (8th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 879 (2013); or matters that have been waived on appeal, see Freitas v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 703 F.3d 436, 438 n.3 (8th Cir. 2013). 3 Where there is no constitutional violation, the issue of qualified immunity need not be addressed. See Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa, 557 F.3d 564, 574 (8th Cir. 2009). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
