Herndon v. Whitworth
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 1995 case, a court rejected an incarcerated person’s 8th Amendment claim, finding that receiving the wrong medication and delayed care showed negligence but not “deliberate indifference” needed for cruel and unusual punishment.

1995 | State Juristiction

Herndon v. Whitworth

Keywords 8th Amendment; cruel and unusual punishment; deliberate indifference; negligence; medical malpractice; incarcerated; prison healthcare; delayed medical care; wrong medication; 1995 case
Open Case as PDF

Eighth Amendment Claim Rejected in Case of Negligent Medical Care

The 1995 case dismissed an incarcerated individual's claim under the Eighth Amendment. The court determined that while the provision of incorrect medication and delayed treatment constituted negligence, this did not meet the requisite standard of "deliberate indifference" necessary to establish cruel and unusual punishment.

Open Case as PDF

Estelle v. Gamble (1976) Precedent

The 1995 case demonstrates a court's application of the Estelle v. Gamble (1976) precedent. The plaintiff, an incarcerated individual, alleged a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The claim centered on the receipt of incorrect medication and subsequent delays in medical care. The court acknowledged negligence in the provision of medical services. However, it determined that the demonstrated failures did not meet the stringent standard of "deliberate indifference" necessary to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment. This ruling highlights the considerable threshold a plaintiff must overcome to prove an Eighth Amendment violation in cases of medical malpractice within a correctional setting.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A 1995 court case dismissed a prisoner's claim of cruel and unusual punishment. The prisoner argued that receiving incorrect medication and delayed medical attention violated the 8th Amendment. However, the court ruled that while the actions showed negligence, they didn't meet the standard of "deliberate indifference" required to prove a violation of the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A prisoner sued in 1995, saying his rights were violated because he got the wrong medicine and his care was delayed. The court said the prison was careless, but not cruel. To be cruel, the court explained, the prison would have had to show deliberate indifference — meaning they knew the situation was bad but didn't care.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

924 F.Supp. 1171 (1995)

Highlights