Yaqub Jameel Faheem v. Armor Correctional Health, Inc. ( 2012 )

Case: 12-12915 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12915
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cv-80122-WPD
YAQUB JAMEEL FAHEEM,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH, INC., et al.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants,
NINA GAMINARA, individually,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 28, 2012)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12915 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 2 of 4
Yaqub Faheem, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se the summary judgment
against his complaint that Nina Gaminara, a nurse at the Palm Beach County
Detention Center, violated his civil rights as a pretrial detainee under the
Fourteenth Amendment. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Faheem argues that Gaminara acted
with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by forging his signature to
obtain his medical records instead of having him transported for an appointment he
had scheduled with a specialist to treat his Hepatitis C and by prescribing
medication to treat his elevated triglycerides and cholesterol that Gaminara knew
or should have known would exacerbate liver damage. We affirm.
We review a summary judgment de novo, and we consider the facts and
draw reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the non-
movant. Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1267 (11th Cir. 2005). Summary
judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[G]enuine disputes of facts are those in which the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant. For factual
issues to be considered genuine, they must have a real basis in the record.” Mann
v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
2
Case: 12-12915 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 3 of 4
The district court did not err when it entered summary judgment against
Faheem’s complaint. Nurse Gaminara treated Faheem, who had a history of
Hepatitis C, but “slightly” elevated liver enzymes, by ordering blood work to
assess his liver and high cholesterol, regulating his diet and later prescribing Lopid
to control his cholesterol, and ordering blood tests to monitor his liver. Faheem
argues that Gaminara obtained his medical records to avoid sending him to a
specialist, but Faheem fails to explain how his condition required the attention of a
specialist. The affidavit of Dr. Chad Zawitz, a physician and medical expert,
established that Gaminara adhered to the standard of care in her treatment of
Faheem, including prescribing him Lopid. Faheem speculates that he had
advanced liver disease and Lopid caused him increased knee pain and skin
disorders, but test results and Dr. Zawitz’s affidavit established that Faheem
exhibited none of the ailments ordinarily associated with advanced liver disease
and the disease could not have been caused by administering Lopid to him.
Faheem complained that Gaminara should have treated his Hepatitis C with the
medication Interferon, but Dr. Zawitz averred that Interferon was contraindicated
for inmates like Faheem who would not be detained long enough to complete the
treatment. Even if we were to conclude that Gaminara was negligent in treating
Faheem, negligence is not sufficient to establish deliberate indifference. See
Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1245 (11th Cir. 2003).
3
Case: 12-12915 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 4 of 4
We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Gaminara.
4