Jason Harris v. United States, No. 15-1948 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Federal Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff failed to prove any employee of defendant caused the delayed diagnosis of his hand and the district court did not need to reach the question of what standard of care would apply if a medical provider had caused the delay; as a result, plaintiff's issue on appeal - that the court selected the wrong standard of care - did not affect his substantial rights, and the district court's judgment is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1948 ___________________________ Jason Harris lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena ____________ Submitted: May 2, 2016 Filed: May 13, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Jason Harris brought an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging that, after he injured his finger in a cell door at the Forrest City Medium Federal Correctional Institution, an emergency room physician recommended tendon repair within two weeks, yet his scheduled consultation with an offsite orthopaedist was not until 18 days later. After a bench trial, the district court1 entered judgment in favor of the United States, concluding that Harris presented “no evidence to show that the delay was caused by any of the Defendant’s employees, or that it affected [the orthopaedist’s] diagnosis.” Harris appeals. Harris’s sole argument for reversal is that the district court erred in applying the medical negligence standard of care in the Arkansas Medical Malpractice Act, see Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-202, rather than the standard for ordinary negligence. However, the asserted error did not affect Harris’s substantial rights. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. Before trial, the district court determined that the negligence asserted by Harris was within the court’s comprehension as a matter of common knowledge, and therefore the Arkansas Medical Malpractice Act did not require Harris to prove negligence by means of expert testimony. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-206. After trial, the court concluded that Harris failed to prove that any employee of defendant caused the delayed diagnosis, so the court did not reach the question of what standard of care would apply if a medical provider had caused the delay. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -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.
