Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

442 F.2d 409

Docket No. 24215.

Philip Douglas Shields v. Dr. E. P. Kunkel

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-05-10

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Failure or refusal to provide medical care may violate the Fourteenth Amendment, but mistreatment does so only under exceptional circumstances that approach failure to provide care at all. Simple malpractice does not give rise to an action under section 1983. (Stiltner v. Rhay (9th Cir.) 371 F.2d 420 , cert. denied (1967) 386 U.S. 997 , 87 S.Ct. 1318 , 18 L.Ed.2d 346 ). The record in this case shows only a difference of opinion as to diagnosis and treatment, not a refusal to provide treatment. The defendant’s views may be wrong and might give rise to a malpractice claim under state law, but they cannot be said to be so outrageous as to amount to no treatment at all. A difference of opinion between patient and physician, without more, does not state a claim under section 1983. (Coppinger v. Townsend (10th Cir. 1968) 398 F. 2d 392 .)””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Marvin Lee Effinger v. Robert L. Wright, Craig v. Hocker

Relies on United States v. Sealy, Inc. · Carl C. Coppinger v. Gene Townsend, M.D., and Wayne K. Patterson · Stiltner v. Rhay

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1971-05-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably Russell v. Sheffer (1975), May v. Enomoto (1980)

18 federal appellate · 2 district ·

14019711980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Philip D. Shields, in pro. per.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen. of Cal., Derald E. Granberg, Don Jacobson, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.

Before KOELSCH, CARTER, and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant, Philip Shields, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1964) for alleged medical mistreatment by a prison doctor. The district court granted the defendant physician's motion for summary judgment, and Shields appeals.

¶2

Appellant, an inmate of a California state prison, alleged that he had injured his back in 1964 during a prison softball game. Some months later, the pain became severe enough to prompt him to seek treatment at the prison hospital. There the defendant prescribed medicine for appellant without examination. Repeated visits led to repeated prescriptions until August of 1966, when appellant was given an examination, including x-rays. Following that examination, the defendant concluded that no new treatment for appellant's injury was necessary and that appellant was 'probably a malingerer.' Appellant brought suit claiming medical mistreatment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

¶3

Failure or refusal to provide medical care may violate the Fourteenth Amendment, but mistreatment does so only under exceptional circumstances that approach failure to provide care at all. Simple malpractice does not give rise to an action under section 1983. (Stiltner v. Rhay (9th Cir.) 371 F.2d 420, cert. denied (1967) 386 U.S. 997, 87 S.Ct. 1318, 18 L.Ed.2d 346.) The record in this case shows only a difference of opinion as to diagnosis and treatment, not a refusal to provide treatment. The defendant's views may be wrong and might give rise to a malpractice claim under state law, but they cannot be said to be so outrageous as to amount to no treatment at all. A difference of opinion between patient and physician, without more, does not state a claim under section 1983. (Coppinger v. Townsend (10th Cir. 1968)398 F.2d 392.)

/442/f2d/409 · .json · Public domain