Facts

Raul Alvarez, an inmate incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, filed suit against Dr. Nastran Hashemi, a physician at the treatment center, in relation to the medical care defendant provided to Alvarez.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Alvarez alleged defendant did not provided him a wheelchair and revoked his accommodation for housing on a lower floor, leading to him suffering a fall on a set of stairs. Alvarez also alleged defendant failed to properly treat his gastrointestinal issues and diabetes, causing his overall condition to become worse. These decisions, Alvarez contended, violated the Eighth Amendment because they reflected deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Alvarez also claimed defendant's decisions to deny a wheelchair and remove his accommodations were retaliation for his filing of previous complaints against her.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant argued that she was entitled to summary judgment because the level of care she provided to Alvarez evidenced her lack of deliberate indifference to Alvarez's medical conditions. Defendant further claimed that the Alvarez's extensive medical treatment and examination record showed constitutionally adequate medical care and reflected her considered medical decisions. Additionally, defendant claimed the record lacked any basis for a retaliation claim and established that all of her decisions were based on well-reasoned medical analysis.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court found defendant's decision to remove Alvarez's accommodation for housing on a lower floor was well considered and based on Alvarez's improving ambulatory condition. The court stated defendant never refused or denied Alvarez any necessary medical treatment, and did not intentionally or knowingly cause Alvarez any harm. Further, the court noted Alvarez did not consistently comply with defendant's prescribed treatments and medications, and defendant repeatedly referred Alvarez to specialists to ensure his conditions were being adequately addressed. The court additionally concluded no retaliatory motive could be found in any of the evidence provided, and defendant's treatment was consistently adequate and aimed at improving Alvarez's condition.