INDIANAPOLIS (Legal Newsline) - A prison inmate who stopped taking prescription medicine after complaining about side effects can sue his doctors for malpractice and deliberate indifference for refusing to provide an alternate medication, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled, reversing a trial court’s dismissal of the prisoner’s lawsuit.
Edward Zaragoza sued three physicians and their employer, Wexford of Indiana, after he stopped taking Synthroid medication for hypothyroidism because of a variety of side effects including neck pain and severe headaches that he ascribed to the drug. Acting as his own attorney, he presented an affidavit from Dr. Richard Schultheis, who criticized Zaragoza’s treating physicians for failing to believe his symptoms and refusing to prescribe a non-allergenic alternative to Synthroid.
A trial judge dismissed Zaragoza’s case, finding the defendants provided appropriate care, and an appeals court upheld the judgment. But the Indiana Supreme Court reversed in a Jan. 25 decision by Justice Christopher Goff, ruling the plaintiff provided enough evidence to raise a question of fact that only a jury can answer.
Stating “an inmate must rely entirely on prison authorities” for medical care, the court said “the route to relief runs through the courts.”
Zaragoza accused Drs. Samuel J. Byrd, Naveen Rajoli and Jackie L. West-Denning of ignoring his side effects and making irresponsible suggestions, such as taking a week’s worth of Synthroid on one day to lessen side effects the rest of the week. To back up his claims he submitted an affidavit from Dr. Richard Schultheis, a family practice doctor who testified he has practiced part-time since 1967.
The defendants argued Dr. Schultheis was unqualified to offer an opinion because he wasn’t a specialist and only consulted Zaragoza’s medical chart. But Dr. Schultheis criticized the doctors for “ineffective and harmful treatment,” and making “little or no effort” to treat Zaragoza. He identified acacia, a non-active ingredient, as a potential source of the side effects.
“Such an opinion, delivered by a qualified physician, is not the kind of `junk science’ or `bald conclusion’ that warrants weeding out at the summary-judgment stage,” the Supreme Court concluded.
Liability can only be determined after a trial, the court said, but a “prison physician cannot simply continue with a course of treatment that he knows is ineffective in treating the inmate’s condition.”