Easley v. Bowser

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Habeas Corpus
  • Date Filed: 09-10-2020
  • Case #: A170973
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Kamins, J. for the Court; Lagesen, P.J.; & Powers, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

To establish a claim for habeas relief, a prisoner must establish that prison officials have not treated the prisoner in a timely manner and “have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical” needs; deliberate indifference requires something “more than an honest difference of medical opinion about correct diagnosis and necessary treatment.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81, 916 P2d 291 (1996).

Appellant, a prisoner at Two Rivers Correctional Institution (TRCI), appealed the trial court’s dismissal of his writ of habeas corpus alleging Respondent, the superintendent of TRCI, denied Appellant “constitutionally adequate treatment for his chronic back pain.”   Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s finding that there was no issue of material fact.  On appeal, Appellant argued that Respondent was deliberately indifferent to Appellant’s medical issue and did not do enough to alleviate his pain.  In response, Respondent argued that TRCI provided adequate treatment and the evidence amounted to a difference of medical opinion between Appellant and his doctors.  To establish a claim for habeas relief, a prisoner must establish that prison officials have not treated the prisoner in a timely manner and “have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs."  Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81, 916 P2d 291 (1996).  Deliberate indifference requires something “more than an honest difference of medical opinion about correct diagnosis and necessary treatment.”  Id.  After examining the evidence in the light most favorable to Appellant, the Court held that a “reasonable trier of fact” could have found that Respondent had “been deliberately indifferent to Appellant’s serious medical need.”  The Court found that there was more than just a difference in medical opinion because, even as Appellant’s pain continued to worsen over four years, the prison doctors continued to prescribe the same, ineffective treatment and did not run further tests.  Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search


Back to Top