WPI 343.03 Conditions of Confinement/Medical Care—Eighth Amendment—Burden of Proof on the Issue...

Use this instruction for Eighth Amendment claims involving medical needs of incarcerated persons who have been convicted and sentenced for a crime. For medical claims brought by a pretrial detainee under the Fourteenth Amendment, see WPI 343.00 (Introduction—Conditions of Confinement—Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment) regarding whether to use or modify this instruction.

Use this instruction with WPI 340.01 (Claims Instruction for Section 1983 Cases) and WPI 340.03 (Civil Rights—“Under Color of Law”—Definition). Use this instruction in place of WPI 340.02 (Civil Rights—Individual Defendant—Burden of Proof on the Issues).

If there are genuine issues of material fact concerning deliberate indifference in a claim brought under the Eighth Amendment, use WPI 343.04 (Conditions of Confinement—Eighth Amendment—Deliberate Indifference—Medical) with this instruction.

Do not use WPI 341.04 (Civil Rights—Failure to Train or Inadequate Training—Municipal Liability—“Deliberate Indifference”—Definition) with this instruction. WPI 341.04 is not appropriate for use in an Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement case.

For discussions of causation and the bracketed word “proximately,” see the Comments to WPI 340.02 (Civil Rights—Individual Defendant—Burden of Proof on the Issues), WPI 340.04 (Civil Rights—“Subjects” and “Causes to be Subjected”—Definition), and WPI 340.06 (Causation—Comment Only).

Do not use medical malpractice instructions for claims that are brought under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. See the Comment below.

Use this instruction with WPI 21.01 (Meaning of Burden of Proof—Preponderance of Evidence).

For general conditions of confinement claims brought under the Eighth Amendment, use WPI 343.01 (General Conditions of Confinement—Eighth Amendment—Burden of Proof on the Issues) instead of this instruction. For general conditions of confinement claims brought under the Fourteenth Amendment, see WPI 343.00 (Conditions of Confinement—Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment—Introduction).

For failure to protect claims brought under the Eighth Amendment, use WPI 343.05 (Conditions of Confinement/Failure to Protect—Eighth Amendment—Burden of Proof on the Issues) instead of this instruction. For failure to protect claims brought under the Fourteenth Amendment, use WPI 343.07 (Conditions of Confinement/Failure to Protect—Fourteenth Amendment—Burden of Proof on the Issues).

Prior to this edition, this instruction was designated as WPI 343.01. This instruction now applies only to claims under the Eighth Amendment.

See WPI 343.00 (Introduction—Conditions of Confinement—Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment) for a discussion of this and other Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement claims.

Convicted prisoner medical claims. The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on prison officials to ensure that inmates receive adequate medical care. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

If a doctor, correctional officer, or any other official acts or fails to act, under circumstances that establish deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of a person who is incarcerated, this constitutes “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” and is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–05, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).

For a medical claim under the Eighth Amendment the plaintiff must establish more than negligence on the defendant's part. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Mendiola-Martinez v. Arpaio, 836 F.3d 1239, 1248 (9th Cir. 2016). To prove a violation of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that the defendant: (1) exposed plaintiff to a substantial risk of serious harm; and (2) was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's constitutional rights. Mendiola-Martinez v. Arpaio, 836 F.3d at 1248 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

Whether a condition is serious, whether the defendant was deliberately indifferent, and whether the deliberate indifference of the defendant proximately caused harm to the plaintiff, are all questions of fact for the jury. Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir. 2010). The plaintiff must overcome the qualified immunity standard, see the Comment to WPI 340.01 (Claims Instruction for Section 1983 Cases), and summary judgment. See generally Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986), abrogated on other grounds in Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178–79, 175 L.Ed.2d 995 (2010).

Distinguishing medical malpractice claims. The standards for medical malpractice claims are quite different than for constitutional claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. If both types of claims are included in a single case, the instructions will need to carefully maintain the proper distinctions.