Hadley v. Reyes ( 2024 )

No. 285 May 1, 2024 407
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
CHAD AUSTIN HADLEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Erin REYES,
Superintendent,
Two Rivers Correctional Institution,
Defendant-Appellant.
Umatilla County Circuit Court
19CV38588; A175798
Eva J. Temple, Judge.
Argued and submitted March 28, 2023.
Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for appellant. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Jedediah Peterson argued the cause for respondent. Also
on the brief was O’Connor Weber, LLC.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
POWERS, J.
Reversed and remanded.
408 Hadley v. Reyes
POWERS, J.
Plaintiff, an adult in custody at Two Rivers
Correctional Facility, petitioned for habeas corpus relief,
alleging that defendant-superintendent failed to provide
constitutionally adequate treatment for chronic back pain.
After a one-day trial, the trial court granted relief, conclud-
ing that plaintiff was imprisoned or restrained illegally and
ordering defendant to provide specific medical tests and
procedures to treat plaintiff’s back pain. On appeal, defen-
dant’s challenge is narrow: Acknowledging that plaintiff
has a serious medical need, defendant asserts in a single
assignment of error that the trial court erred in applying
a “community standard of care” instead of the “deliberate
indifference” standard applicable to a medical habeas claim.
Plaintiff agrees that the “deliberate indifference” standard
applies but remonstrates that the trial court did not err. In
plaintiff’s view, although the court referenced the commu-
nity standard of care in its factual findings, both parties’
arguments referenced the “deliberate indifference” stan-
dard, and the court did not refer to the community stan-
dard of care in its legal conclusions. As explained below, we
reverse and remand.
We review whether a trial court applied the cor-
rect legal standard for errors of law. See Billings v. Gates,
323 Or 167, 180, 916 P2d 291 (1996) (applying standard);
see also Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or 63,
117, 376 P3d 960 (2016) (explaining that “whether a trial
court applied the correct substantive standard to guide its
decision is a question of law” that is reviewed for legal error).
Because the parties are familiar with the underlying fac-
tual and procedural history, we do not provide a detailed
recitation for this nonprecedential memorandum opinion.
To sustain a medical habeas claim under Article I,
section 16, of the Oregon Constitution and under the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, a plaintiff
must allege that the plaintiff “has a serious medical need
that has not been treated in a timely and proper manner
and that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent
to the [plaintiff’s] serious medical needs.” Billings, 323 Or
at 181 (adopting the federal standard set forth in Estelle
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 332 Or App 407 (2024) 409
v. Gamble, 429 US 97, 106, 97 S Ct 285, 50 L Ed 2d 251(1976)). Deliberate indifference “constitutes the unnecessary
and wanton infliction of pain” by prison officials in their
response to an adult in custody’s serious medical needs or
by corrections officers intentionally denying or delaying
access to medical care or intentionally interfering with pre-
scribed treatment. Billings, 323 Or at 181. A plaintiff must
show “more than an honest difference of medical opinion
about [the] correct diagnosis and necessary treatment.”
Id. Therefore, the trial court in this case had to determine
whether plaintiff had a “serious medical need” and whether
defendant was “deliberately indifferent” to that need.
In granting habeas relief, the trial court made sev-
eral findings, including that plaintiff suffers from chronic
back pain and that the treatments provided by defendant
have not been effective in diagnosing or treating the pain.1
The court found that plaintiff’s expert witness “testified
regarding the community standard of medical care in
regard to lower back pain” and that defendant’s refusal to
have a specialist evaluate plaintiff’s pain and refusal to pro-
vide an MRI “does not meet the community standard for the
medical care in plaintiff’s circumstances.” The court further
found that defendant “did not present testimony regarding
the appropriate standard of care nor did [defendant] pres-
ent evidence it was in compliance with the community stan-
dard of care.” Finally, the court concluded that plaintiff was
“imprisoned or restrained illegally” and ordered defendant
to provide various medical procedures to plaintiff.
After reviewing the parties’ arguments on appeal,
we conclude that the trial court applied an incorrect legal
standard. That is, although the court referenced the “com-
munity standard of care” multiple times in the judgment, it
did not reference the “deliberate indifference” standard in
1
After defendant filed the notice of appeal in this case, the trial court
issued two amended judgments clarifying its ruling. However, the Appellate
Commissioner determined that, because defendant had already filed the notice of
appeal, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to make the substantive amend-
ments that it attempted to make to the judgment. Accordingly, the Appellate
Commissioner vacated the operative amended judgment and then dismissed the
appeal from that amended judgment (the earlier amended judgment had already
been vacated by the trial court). This appeal is from the original judgment
entered on April 1, 2021.
410 Hadley v. Reyes
any part of the judgment. Moreover, the court’s reasoning
does not suggest that it applied Billings or any other case
using the deliberate indifference standard; rather, the court
highlighted the community standard of care evidence and
specifically noted that defendant did not present evidence
that the care complied with that standard of care. Although
the community standard of care may be relevant in a medi-
cal habeas case, the trial court’s reasoning does not address
whether plaintiff suffered “unnecessary and wanton inflic-
tion of pain” by prison officials as Billings requires. Although
both parties’ arguments before the trial court included the
deliberate indifference standard, the trial court did not
apply that standard in rendering the judgment. Accordingly,
we reverse and remand to allow the trial court to apply the
correct legal standard to plaintiff’s medical habeas claim at
the time of a new trial. See Woodroffe v. Nooth, 257 Or App
704, 711, 308 P3d 225, rev den, 354 Or 491 (2013) (explaining
that, under ORS 34.362(2), “the proper temporal benchmark
for assessing deliberate indifference is at the time that the
habeas claim is adjudicated” (emphasis omitted)).
Reversed and remanded.