Shipp v. Murphy, No. 20-2703 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of defendants in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state negligence law against prison officials, medical staff, and a medical services company for withholding plaintiff's prescription orthotic shoes.
The court concluded that, although the district court erred by relying on Arkansas law to exclude parts of plaintiff's substituted expert's testimony because the matter should have been weighed under Daubert and relevant federal law, the error was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in excluding the nurse's testimony as a substituted expert when her opinions went beyond the scope of the earlier expert report and deposition. The court further concluded that the district court did not err in granting the warden's motion for summary judgment as there was no evidence that the warden recognized the risk of having plaintiff wear standard issue prison shoes or knew that requiring a doctor's authorization for special shoes would put plaintiff's health at risk. Furthermore, there was no error in granting summary judgment for the medical defendants where their actions either did not rise to the level of criminal negligence or were not so inappropriate that a jury would find intentional maltreatment or a refusal to provide essential care.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. In this action plaintiff alleged defendants violated his civil rights by withholding his orthotic shoes; the district court erred in looking to state law to exclude parts of plaintiff's substituted expert's testimony as the matter should have been weighed under Daubert and relevant federal law; however, the error was harmless as the witness, a nurse practitioner, was not qualified to opine on a physician's standard of care; further, her opinion was cumulative of other evidence in the case, and its exclusion was harmless; the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the nurse's testimony as a substituted expert to the extent her opinions went beyond the scope of the earlier expert report and deposition; the district court did not err in granting the warden's motion for summary judgment as there was no evidence that the warden recognized the risk of having plaintiff wear standard issue prison shoes or knew that requiring a doctor's authorization for special shoes would put plaintiff's health at risk; summary judgment for the medical defendants is affirmed as their actions either did not rise to the level of criminal negligence or were not so inappropriate that a jury would find intentional maltreatment or a refusal to provide essential care. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
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.