Rowe v. Gibson

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants-certain prison medical officials’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his GERD condition by withholding free Zantac medication for 33 days and by administering Zantac at time of day when it would be ineffective to treat plaintiff’s pain. While defendant-treating physician testified that Zantac was not necessary to treat plaintiff’s condition, said physician failed to explain why he had prescribed Zantac for plaintiff for period of time, and certain medical evidence gleaned from Internet refuted physician’s statement that Zantac can be given at any time of day. Fact that pro se plaintiff failed to present any contrary evidence to dispute defendant-physician’s testimony did not require different result. Ct. further observed that defendant-treating physician could not testify as “expert,” where said physician was defendant in case and was not practicing in medical field at issue in case. (Dissent filed.)