Smego v. Mitchell

Dist. Ct. erred in granting motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants-prison dentists and others were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff-prisoner’s serious dental problems by ignoring plaintiffs’ request for treatment of 12 cavities, as well as his request for appropriate pain medication. While defendant-dentist addressed two of defendant’s 12 teeth, jury could conclude that treatment provided by dentist was inappropriate where: (1) period of five years elapsed after dentist had diagnosed plaintiff’s dental problems and still not begun treatment on two of plaintiff’s teeth; and (2) dentist proscribed plaintiff pain medication that she knew he could not take. Also, plaintiff could proceed against: (1) prison hygienist, where plaintiff alleged that hygienist discouraged plaintiff from taking aggressive steps to address his dental problems; and (2) prison physician, who was aware of plaintiff’s complaints about his teeth and yet failed to contact dentist or anyone else to determine why plaintiff was not receiving dental treatment.