Jacob Pfaller v. Mark Amonette

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 1 of 52
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1555
JACOB PFALLER, Administrator of the Estate of Danny Harold Pfaller,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DR. MARK AMONETTE, in his individual capacity,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
DR. LAURENCE SHU-CHUNG WANG, in his individual capacity,
Defendant.
------------------------------
RIGHTS BEHIND BARS,
Amicus Supporting Appellee.
No. 21-1612
JACOB PFALLER, Administrator of the Estate of Danny Harold Pfaller,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DR. LAURENCE SHU-CHUNG WANG, in his individual capacity,
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 2 of 52
Defendant - Appellant,
and
DR. MARK AMONETTE, in his individual capacity,
Defendant.
------------------------------
RIGHTS BEHIND BARS,
Amicus Supporting Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00728-REP)
Argued: September 16, 2022 Decided: December 15, 2022
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge Wynn wrote
the opinion, in which Judge Diaz joined. Judge Wilkinson wrote a separate opinion
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
ARGUED: Andrew Nathan Ferguson, Erika L. Maley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. John Michael Shoreman,
MCFADDEN & SHOREMAN, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mark R.
Herring, Attorney General, K. Scott Miles, Deputy Attorney General, Laura Maughan,
Assistant Attorney General, Michelle S. Kallen, Acting Solicitor General, Brittany M.
Jones, Deputy Solicitor General, Laura H. Cahill, Assistant Attorney General, Rohiniyurie
Tashima, John Marshall Fellow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant Dr. Amonette. Erin B. Ashwell, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, A. Anne Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Lynne Jones Blain, M.
Scott Fisher, Jr., HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia,
for Appellant Dr. Wang. Mario B. Williams, Dallas S. LePierre, HDR LLC, Atlanta,
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 3 of 52
Georgia, for Appellee. Oren Nimmi, RIGHTS BEHIND BARS, Washington, D.C., for
Amicus Rights Behind Bars.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 4 of 52
WYNN, Circuit Judge:
Danny Pfaller died from liver cancer while he was a prisoner with the Virginia
Department of Corrections (“Department”). His estate sued several prison officials under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Virginia law, alleging that they violated the Eighth Amendment and
state law by failing to provide Pfaller treatment for his chronic hepatitis C until it was too
late.
Defendants in this appeal are Dr. Mark Amonette and Dr. Laurence Shu-Chung
Wang. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Amonette designed treatment guidelines for inmates with
hepatitis C that unconstitutionally excluded Pfaller from receiving treatment. Plaintiff also
alleges that Dr. Wang failed to follow those guidelines and committed both medical
malpractice and Eighth Amendment violations in denying him appropriate treatment.
Defendants unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, alleging that they were
protected by qualified immunity and, on Dr. Wang’s part, derivative sovereign immunity.
For the reasons that follow, we reverse the district court’s denial of sovereign
immunity to Dr. Wang and denial of qualified immunity to Dr. Amonette but affirm its
denial of qualified immunity to Dr. Wang.
I.
Because this case is before us on interlocutory appeal, the following facts are
recounted as the district court viewed them, and in the light most favorable to Pfaller. See
Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 305 (4th Cir. 2020).
4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 5 of 52
A.
Hepatitis C is a disease caused by a viral infection of the liver. In certain individuals,
hepatitis C can persist as an asymptomatic infection for years. In others, the virus can lead
to liver inflammation, fibrosis (liver scarring), cirrhosis (liver tissue death), and even
terminal liver cancer.
For many years, the only curative treatment for hepatitis C was a course of
interferon-based drugs. However, these drugs offered a low cure rate (40 to 50%) and
caused major side effects, including life-threatening neuropsychiatric and autoimmune
disorders. In 2014, the Food and Drug Administration began approving a suite of new drugs
called direct-acting antivirals for treatment of hepatitis C patients. These drugs offered
great promise. Not only were they less likely to cause serious side effects, but they also
boasted cure rates of 90 to 100%. By 2015, direct-acting antivirals were available for
treating hepatitis C patients.
In response to these medical advances, Dr. Amonette, the Department’s chief
physician, developed new hepatitis C treatment guidelines (“Guidelines”) for the
Department. Under the Guidelines, the Department agreed to refer inmates with hepatitis
C to a clinic at Virginia Commonwealth University (“VCU”) based on certain criteria.
These criteria sorted inmates into three groups based on APRI and FIB-4 scores that
assessed their level of fibrosis (if any). 1 Inmates who scored at the high end of the scale
1
“APRI” stands for “aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio.” J.A. 116. It is a
noninvasive way to estimate fibrosis, or liver scarring. J.A. 397. “FIB-4” is short for
“Fibrosis-4 index,” and is another formula used to assess fibrosis based on a patient’s age,
5
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 6 of 52
were to be “automatically referred to VCU for evaluation without any additional testing.”
J.A. 116. Inmates who scored in the middle tier were to receive “additional testing to
determine whether [they] should be referred for evaluation.” Id. And those who scored at
the low end were not to be referred for treatment and instead were to “receive periodic
laboratory blood testing and chronic care appointments with a medical provider.” Id.Outside of these criteria, a physician could also refer an inmate to the VCU clinic “if there
[were] other findings suggestive of advanced liver disease.” J.A. 303. Once referred, the
inmate would receive an antiviral prescription unless there was some other medical reason
not to treat them.
Dr. Amonette explains that these Guidelines were designed to ensure that those with
the greatest need were treated first. Plaintiff’s expert disputes this, stating that the
Guidelines were actually a tool for excluding patients from treatment. The parties agree
that when resources are limited, prioritization of patients with the most advanced disease
can be a reasonable strategy. But whether the Department’s resources were actually limited
is disputed.
B.
Danny Pfaller was an inmate with the Department from 1999 to 2018. As early as
2007, Pfaller tested positive for hepatitis C. Beginning in 2015, Pfaller had his blood drawn
platelet count, and other factors. J.A. 116, 397. Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the parties’
Joint Appendix filed in this appeal.
6
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 7 of 52
every six to twelve months to assess his APRI and FIB-4 scores, consistent with the
Guidelines. During this time, Dr. Wang served as Pfaller’s primary physician.
Between 2015 and 2018, Dr. Wang twice failed to follow the Guidelines in treating
Pfaller. On October 16, 2015, Pfaller tested into the middle tier of the Guidelines criteria
and therefore qualified for fibroscan testing to determine the extent of any fibrosis. But Dr.
Wang did not refer him. Two years later, following several tests that fell into the lowest
tier, Pfaller tested into the middle tier again. But once again, Dr. Wang did not refer him
for more testing. Dr. Wang claims both failures were a mistake. He states that he did not
refer Pfaller for a fibroscan because he thought the inclusion number for the middle tier
was 1.5 on the FIB-4 test, when it was in fact 1.45.
On May 7, 2018, Pfaller tested for a third time into the middle criteria, and this time,
Dr. Wang acted. He submitted a request for a fibroscan on May 14. Meanwhile, Dr. Wang
began to see Pfaller for numerous physical examinations showing increasingly severe signs
of liver disease. In early June, Pfaller visited Dr. Wang for abdominal pain and swelling,
and Dr. Wang ordered hepatitis C genotype testing and prescribed medication to alleviate
the symptoms. Later that month, Pfaller visited Dr. Wang for weight gain and bowel
obstruction. Dr. Wang found that Pfaller’s abdomen was distended, and he was retaining
fluid—symptoms of liver disease—so Dr. Wang prescribed diuretics. During this time, Dr.
Wang knew Pfaller “was on the list to be scheduled for a Fibroscan at VCU,” but took no
further measures to ensure Pfaller was actually tested. J.A. 1958. In early July, Pfaller
visited the clinic three more times, complaining of shortness of breath, a cough, and fluid
retention.
7
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 8 of 52
On July 11, 2018, Pfaller visited Dr. Wang again for fullness in his abdomen. Dr.
Wang examined him and concluded his hepatitis C was causing fluid retention and
cirrhosis. Two months after he originally put in a referral, he now ordered a fibroscan
“asap,” which was performed six days later. J.A. 1959. A follow-up CT scan revealed a
mass on Pfaller’s liver. After further testing, Dr. Wang referred Pfaller to VCU’s oncology
department. Pfaller was diagnosed with untreatable liver cancer in early September. He
died only a month later, on October 3, 2018.
C.
Plaintiff Jacob Pfaller, who is Pfaller’s son and the administrator of Pfaller’s estate,
filed suit on behalf of the estate in October 2019. Three claims are relevant to this appeal.
To start, Plaintiff filed Eighth Amendment claims against Dr. Wang and Dr. Amonette in
their individual capacities, alleging they were each deliberately indifferent to Pfaller’s
serious medical needs. Additionally, Plaintiff filed a state-law medical-malpractice claim
against Dr. Wang in his individual capacity.
At the close of discovery, Dr. Wang and Dr. Amonette each moved for summary
judgment. The district court rejected Defendants’ arguments in two separate decisions.
First, the court found that Plaintiff had pointed to several genuine disputes of material fact
as to whether Dr. Wang and Dr. Amonette were deliberately indifferent. See Pfaller v.
Clarke, 630 B.R. 197, 207 (E.D. Va. 2021) (Dr. Amonette); Pfaller v. Clarke, No.
3:19CV728, 2021 WL 1776189, at *6 (E.D. Va. May 4, 2021) (Dr. Wang). The court also
concluded that “Pfaller’s Eighth Amendment right to receive adequate medical care and to
be free from officials’ deliberate indifference to his known medical needs” was clearly
8
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 9 of 52
established at the time in question, so Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.
Pfaller, 630 B.R. at 215; Pfaller, 2021 WL 1776189, at *10. Finally, the court rejected Dr.
Wang’s sovereign-immunity defense to the malpractice claim. Pfaller, 2021 WL 1776189,
at *14. Both Defendants timely appealed.
II.
We first examine the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to both defendants
on the constitutional claim. Our review is limited by the posture of this case on
interlocutory appeal. Hicks, 965 F.3d at 308.
Although denials of summary judgment are generally not subject to appellate
review, denials of qualified immunity are an exception and may be appealed immediately.
Id. Nonetheless, our review is limited only “to the extent [a denial of qualified immunity]
turns on an issue of law.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Gould v. Davis, 165 F.3d 265,
268 (4th Cir. 1998)).
In conducting such a review, we answer only a “narrow legal question: if we take
the facts as the district court gives them to us, and we view those facts in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, is the defendant still entitled to qualified immunity?” Williams v.
Strickland, 917 F.3d 763, 768 (4th Cir. 2019) (footnote omitted); see also Iko v. Shreve,
535 F.3d 225, 234 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e possess no jurisdiction over a claim that a
plaintiff has not presented enough evidence to prove that the plaintiff’s version of the facts
actually occurred, but we have jurisdiction over a claim that there was no violation of
clearly established law accepting the facts as the district court viewed them.” (quoting
Winfield v. Bass, 106 F.3d 525, 530 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc))).
9
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 10 of 52
A.
Our qualified-immunity inquiry proceeds in two steps, which we may address in
whichever sequence “will best facilitate the fair and efficient disposition of [the] case.”
Halcomb v. Ravenell, 992 F.3d 316, 319 (4th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). First, a plaintiff
must show a violation of a constitutional right. Thompson v. Virginia, 878 F.3d 89, 97 (4th
Cir. 2017). And second, “the right at issue must have been ‘clearly established’ at the time
of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Id. (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223,
232 (2009)).
The source of the right at issue here is the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the
infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. This prohibition
extends to “the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he
is confined.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). Because “adequate . . . medical
care” is a basic condition of humane confinement, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832
(1994), a prison official’s “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners
constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the Eighth
Amendment,” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
To establish a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a prisoner
“must satisfy the Supreme Court’s two-pronged test set forth in Farmer v. Brennan.” Scinto
v. Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219, 225 (4th Cir. 2016). Farmer’s first, “objective” prong requires
a plaintiff to prove that the alleged deprivation was “sufficiently serious.” Farmer, 511
10
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 11 of 52
U.S. at 834 (citation omitted). Farmer’s second, “subjective” prong requires a plaintiff to
show that prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference.” Scinto, 841 F.3d at 225.
This second prong itself has two subparts: a plaintiff must show the prison official
(1) had “actual knowledge of the risk of harm to the inmate” and (2) “‘recognized that his
actions were insufficient’ to mitigate the risk of harm to the inmate arising from his medical
needs.” Iko, 535 F.3d at 241 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Parrish ex rel. Lee v. Cleveland,
372 F.3d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 2004)). “[M]ere negligence” won’t meet this standard, De’lonta
v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 634 (4th Cir. 2003), but neither is “actual purposive intent”
required, De’lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520, 525 (4th Cir. 2013). Instead, deliberate
indifference is most akin to criminal-law recklessness. Campbell v. Florian, 972 F.3d 385,
395 (4th Cir. 2020), as amended (Aug. 28, 2020). Further, so long as the official who knew
of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety “responded reasonably to the risk,” they
cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment, “even if the harm ultimately was not
averted.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844.
Even if a plaintiff proves an Eighth Amendment right was violated, our inquiry isn’t
over. Under the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, an official is nonetheless
entitled to immunity “if the right was not so ‘clearly established’ that ‘a reasonable official
would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” Thompson, 878 F.3d at 98
(quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)). The state of the law at the time must
have given an official “fair warning” that his treatment of the prisoner was unconstitutional.
Id. (quoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 741).
11
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 12 of 52
In performing this analysis, a court must pinpoint the precise constitutional right at
issue in order to determine whether it was clearly established. See Halcomb, 992 F.3d at
319–20. In doing so, a court must be careful not to define the right “at a high level of
generality ‘[b]ecause the dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular
conduct is clearly established.’” Id. at 320 (quoting Estate of Armstrong ex rel. Armstrong
v. Village of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892, 907 (4th Cir. 2016)). Nonetheless, Eighth
Amendment claims don’t require the same level of specificity that is needed in, for
example, the Fourth Amendment context. See Thorpe v. Clarke, 37 F.4th 926, 940 (4th Cir.
2022). And “[t]here is no requirement that the ‘very action in question [must have]
previously been held unlawful’ for a reasonable official to have notice that his conduct
violated that right.” Scinto, 841 F.3d at 236 (quoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 739).
The extent of the analysis required for this second prong, however, varies
considerably across cases. This Court recently held in Thorpe v. Clarke that “when
‘plaintiffs have made a showing sufficient to’ demonstrate an intentional violation of the
Eighth Amendment, ‘they have also made a showing sufficient to overcome any claim to
qualified immunity.’” 37 F.4th at 934 (quoting Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120,
142 n.15 (3d Cir. 2001)). That’s because, as Thorpe opined, “qualified immunity does not
shield ‘those who knowingly violate the law.’” Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S.
731, 743 (2011)). And because the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate-indifference standard
requires knowing conduct, an official who was deliberately indifferent could not also
believe “that [their] actions comported with clearly established law.” Id. at 939 (quoting
Beers-Capitol, 256 F.3d at 142 n.15). Thus, in Thorpe, we “effectively collapse[d]”
12
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 13 of 52
qualified immunity’s two inquiries into one, holding that dismissal on qualified-immunity
grounds “remains improper so long as the officers’ mental state remains genuinely in
issue.” Id. at 934 (citation omitted).
We don’t believe, however, that Thorpe directs this Court to eliminate the clearly
established law prong in every case where a dispute of fact related to the defendant’s mental
state remains. 2 Critically, the Supreme Court has not so limited itself.
In Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822 (2015) (per curiam), the Supreme Court reversed
the lower courts’ denial of qualified immunity. The lower courts had held there were
genuine issues of material fact as to whether there was an Eighth Amendment violation.
Yet the Court concluded that, even if that were so, qualified immunity nevertheless
attached because the right at issue was not clearly established. Id. at 827. Thus, we know
from Taylor that not all disputes of material fact as to deliberate indifference will freeze
our application of qualified immunity where warranted.
Instead, Eighth Amendment cases exist on a spectrum of intent and harm. Thorpe
most neatly applies to a prison doctor, who doesn’t need case law to tell him his patient
2
Defendants argue that Thorpe only applies to cases at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
As discussed below, the lack of factual development at that stage does appear to have been
relevant to the outcome in Thorpe. But Thorpe’s reasoning doesn’t hinge on its procedural
posture. Moreover, this Court has already relied on Thorpe to vacate a grant of summary
judgment where the district court found that the defendants may have intentionally
discriminated against the plaintiff based on his religion yet nonetheless granted immunity
because the defendants did not violate a clearly established right. Coleman v. Jones, No.
20-7382, 2022 WL 2188402, at *6 (4th Cir. June 17, 2022) (unpublished but orally argued)
(“[W]hen . . . there is a triable issue as to whether defendants engaged in a constitutional
violation that incorporates intent as an element, qualified immunity may be
inappropriate.”).
13
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 14 of 52
deserves fair treatment. Or a prison guard, who doesn’t need case law to tell him he can’t
abuse an inmate. Thorpe collapses qualified immunity’s two-pronged inquiry in these cases
because each prong merely duplicates the other’s work; these Eighth Amendment
violations inherently include knowing disregard for the law. See Thorpe, 37 F.4th at 938–
40.
But in other cases, there may be more attenuation between the risk of harm and the
defendant’s knowledge that his conduct is constitutionally deficient. And in these cases, a
defendant is less able to “use his own ‘state of mind’ as ‘a reference point’ to ‘assess
conformity to the law,’” as Thorpe envisions. Id. at 939 (quoting Thompson, 878 F.3d at
106). Thorpe itself recognized this: “What Defendants actually demur is that they did not
know, until [a later] decision . . . , that the . . . conditions they promulgated posed a
substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment. They may well end
up on the winning side of that argument after the evidence comes in, but for now, these
fact[ual] issues compel us to move this case forward unless Defendants’ entitlement to
qualified immunity appears on the face of the complaint.” Id. at 935 (emphasis added)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
This principle is illustrated by the very cases at hand—Thorpe on one end of the
spectrum, Taylor on the other. In Thorpe, we found (and the defendants didn’t even
challenge) that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that prison officials knew the harm that
long-term solitary confinement caused, yet disregarded it. Id. at 933. We emphasized the
officials’ consciousness of a serious risk of harm: that the plaintiffs suffered a range of
severe physical and mental harms, such as schizoaffective disorder, psychosis, bouts of
14
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 15 of 52
disorientation, and severe weight loss; that for years, the defendants “had daily contact with
[the p]laintiffs”; that the defendants had been pressured to abandon similar solitary-
confinement systems several times before; and that numerous studies and judicial
precedents had documented “the severe and often permanent damage caused by” such
systems. Id. at 935–96. In short, the harm was “obvious,” id. at 934, and “the pre-existing
law [was] not in controversy,” id. at 935 (quoting Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 190
(2011)).
Under those facts, which sufficiently alleged “an intentional violation of the Eighth
Amendment,” we concluded that the plaintiffs “‘also made a showing sufficient to
overcome any claim to qualified immunity.’” Id. at 934 (emphasis added) (quoting Beers-
Capitol, 256 F.3d at 142 n.15). We relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ortiz v.
Jordan, where the Court likewise declined to grant qualified immunity to officers who were
deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s safety. See id. at 934–35. The facts in Ortiz, like
those in Thorpe, demonstrated an obvious harm, where prison officials failed to distance
the plaintiff from her assailant after they were “adequately informed” of a sexual assault.
Ortiz, 562 U.S. at 191. Ortiz indicated that those facts plainly fell under the clearly
established law that the Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from situations where an
official knows they face a substantial risk of serious harm in the form of violence, but
“disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 190 (quoting
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847).
In Taylor, by contrast, the Supreme Court examined whether a prison implemented
adequate suicide prevention protocols and concluded that the defendants were entitled to
15
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 16 of 52
qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established. Unlike the
defendants in Thorpe and Ortiz, the Taylor defendants had not “personally interacted with
[the prisoner] or knew of his condition before his death.” Taylor, 575 U.S. at 824. A
constitutional violation could arise, then, only if the prison’s suicide-screening measures
were inadequate. Id. at 824–25. Yet as the Court opined, no case law actually identified
what minimum procedures a prison had to use. Id. at 826–27. Thus, the Court held that
“even if the [prison’s] suicide screening and prevention measures contained the
shortcomings that [the plaintiffs] allege[d], no precedent . . . would have made clear to [the
defendants] that they were overseeing a system that violated the Constitution.” Id. at 827.
Put another way, even if the defendants’ suicide-prevention protocols were wanting,
they weren’t clearly unconstitutional. The defendants’ states of mind in crafting those
policies, then, could not be a guiding compass to ensuring those policies met constitutional
muster, unlike in Thorpe. See Thorpe, 37 F.4th at 939 (stating that precedent isn’t needed
when an official can “use his own state of mind as a reference point to assess conformity
to the law” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). In such a case, the “clearly
established” prong of the qualified-immunity analysis continues to perform work
independent of the “constitutional-violation” prong—again, unlike in Thorpe. And so, in
cases like Taylor, even where they may be a dispute of material fact as to the underlying
constitutional violation, a court may still inquire into whether a right was clearly
established to determine if the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
To review, in order to defeat a defendant’s claim for qualified immunity, a plaintiff
must show: (1) a violation of a constitutional right, which in the case of alleged deliberate
16
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 17 of 52
indifference to serious medical needs requires a showing that (A) the alleged deprivation
was sufficiently serious (the objective prong) and (B) prison officials acted with deliberate
indifference (the subjective prong), which in turn requires a showing that the prison official
(i) had actual knowledge of the risk of harm and (ii) recognized that his actions were
insufficient to mitigate that risk of harm; and (2) that the constitutional right was clearly
established at the time of the defendant’s actions. If a plaintiff fails to satisfy either prong
of the qualified-immunity test, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. But in some
cases, like Thorpe, the court need not separately determine whether the constitutional right
was clearly established if there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to an official’s
deliberate indifference, because that potential deliberate indifference would, if established,
necessarily include an awareness of the illegality of the defendant’s actions.
B.
We turn first to whether Dr. Wang, Pfaller’s primary physician, is entitled to
qualified immunity under this two-step framework. We conclude that (1) Plaintiff has
presented sufficient facts for a reasonable jury to find that Dr. Wang was deliberately
indifferent to Pfaller’s serious medical needs and (2) Pfaller’s right to treatment was clearly
established by 2015, the year of Dr. Wang’s first alleged violation. Thus, we affirm the
district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Dr. Wang.
1.
Dr. Wang doesn’t contest Farmer’s first, objective prong that the alleged
deprivation here was sufficiently serious. Nor could he. We have previously found that this
17
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 18 of 52
prong is satisfied by failure to treat an “inmate’s serious medical needs,” including,
specifically, hepatitis C. Gordon v. Schilling, 937 F.3d 348, 356–57 (4th Cir. 2019).
Dr. Wang’s dispute instead centers on the subjective prong and whether he was
deliberately indifferent to Pfaller’s hepatitis C. On this issue, the district court found that
Plaintiff had established at least two genuine disputes of material fact. The first dispute
concerns Dr. Wang’s failure to refer Pfaller for additional testing on two occasions. As the
court recognized, it is undisputed that Pfaller’s bloodwork qualified him for additional
testing three times: 1) on October 16, 2015, Pfaller’s FIB-4 score was 1.48, which exceeded
the 1.45 cutoff for referral; (2) on July 12, 2017, Pfaller had a FIB-4 score of 1.46, which
again exceeded the 1.45 cutoff; and (3) on May 7, 2018, Pfaller had an APRI of 0.55 and
a FIB-4 of 2.18, both of which exceeded the criteria for additional testing. But Dr. Wang
only referred Pfaller for a fibroscan after the last encounter. By then, it was much too late.
Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, as we must at summary
judgment, Knibbs v. Momphard, 30 F.4th 200, 213 (4th Cir. 2022), Plaintiff raises a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Wang was deliberately indifferent.
Specifically, a reasonable jury could conclude that Dr. Wang knew Pfaller qualified for
additional testing but declined to do anything about it. As Dr. Wang acknowledges, he
understood that the Guidelines set the standard of care for the treatment of patients with
chronic hepatitis C. The Guidelines explicitly and unambiguously indicated that Pfaller
qualified on each occasion. It is a reasonable inference that Dr. Wang, as a staff physician,
was aware of those Guidelines.
18
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 19 of 52
This inference is further bolstered by the fact that, although the relevant portions of
the Guidelines did not change between June 2015 and May 2018, they were revised as a
whole at least six times in that time period. Presumably, Dr. Wang would have received a
copy of these revised guidelines each time; after all, he acknowledged the Guidelines set
the standard of care for treating prisoners with hepatitis C. If we infer that Dr. Wang did
his job and reviewed each copy carefully to ensure nothing important had changed, that
means he had at least six opportunities to confirm the FIB-4 cutoff for additional testing
was indeed 1.45. A reasonable jury could therefore infer that Dr. Wang knew the true APRI
and FIB-4 cutoffs but nevertheless declined to refer Pfaller for testing for two and a half
years.
Dr. Wang counters that he did not refer Pfaller because he made a simple mistake.
Specifically, he claims in his declaration that he “believed the inclusion number for the
[FIB-4] was 1.50 when in fact it was 1.45.” J.A. 1954. For support, Dr. Wang points to the
fact that once Pfaller’s FIB-4 score exceeded 1.5 on May 7, 2018, he referred him for a
fibroscan. Dr. Wang argues that without any direct evidence to contradict his account, there
is no genuine issue of material fact. At most, he contends, the facts show only negligence,
which is not enough to state an Eighth Amendment violation.
Like the district court, we decline at this stage to accept Dr. Wang’s self-serving
assertion as fact, for several reasons. First, Dr. Wang tries to bolster his claim of mistake
by noting that as soon as Pfaller’s FIB-4 score exceeded 1.5 on May 7, 2018—the number
he allegedly believed was the threshold—Dr. Wang referred him for testing. But as the
district court observed, Pfaller’s May 7 APRI score also exceeded the cutoff for additional
19
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 20 of 52
testing. So, critically, we have no way of knowing which score actually influenced Dr.
Wang’s referral, other than his own testimony. Moreover, the May 7, 2018, FIB-4 score
was 2.18—far higher than the earlier scores of 1.48 and 1.46. A reasonable jury could infer
that Dr. Wang opted to ignore the first two scores, despite knowing about the Guideline
cutoff, but felt the third score was too high to reasonably ignore.
Next is Dr. Wang’s testimony itself. To accept that Dr. Wang’s repeated errors were
at most mere negligence would require crediting his own self-serving assertion. Of course,
a jury may ultimately choose to credit Dr. Wang’s assertion over Plaintiff’s circumstantial
evidence that Dr. Wang was aware Pfaller qualified for further testing. But that decision
rests on an evaluation of Dr. Wang’s credibility, which we are not permitted to weigh at
the summary-judgment stage. See Hensley ex rel. North Carolina v. Price, 876 F.3d 573,
584 n.6 (4th Cir. 2017). And while self-serving affidavits offered by the non-movant can
sometimes defeat summary judgment, e.g., Lovett v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store,
Inc., 700 F. App’x 209, 212 (4th Cir. 2017) (unpublished but orally argued), here it is the
movant—Dr. Wang—who offers his own statements as the key evidence in support of
summary judgment. That is insufficient. E.g., Knibbs, 30 F.4th at 222 (“Because [the
defendant] is the moving party, we are constrained to assume that the jury will not credit
his evidence and will instead accept the [plaintiff]’s proffered evidence on disputed fact
questions. . . . [We would] contravene[] Rule 56 [if we were to] accept[] [the
defendant]’s self-serving statements and read[] the evidence in the light most favorable
to him.”).
20
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 21 of 52
Moreover, even if we did credit Dr. Wang’s self-serving assertion, it is not the
panacea he believes it is. To accept Dr. Wang’s claim of mistake, we would need to assume
that he did not verify the Guidelines criteria either time he reviewed Pfaller’s bloodwork,
since the Guidelines explicitly set forth the 1.45 threshold for FIB-4 scores. But this, too,
raises an issue of deliberate indifference, because “prison officials may not simply bury
their heads in the sand and thereby skirt liability.” Makdessi v. Fields, 789 F.3d 126, 133
(4th Cir. 2015). For example, we have held that a prison guard may not avoid liability if he
“refused to verify ‘underlying facts that he strongly suspected to be true’ [or] ‘declined to
confirm inferences of risk that he strongly suspected to exist.’” Id. at 133–34 (quoting Brice
v. Va. Beach Corr. Ctr., 58 F.3d 101, 105 (4th Cir. 1995)).
Here, it is undisputed that Dr. Wang knew Pfaller’s blood results fell right near the
line of warranting further screening. Yet, by his own account, he failed to check his guess
about their meaning against the Guidelines, despite knowing the increasing risk of liver
disease that higher scores denoted.
Finally, Dr. Wang is incorrect when he argues that Plaintiff has failed to produce
any evidence contradicting Dr. Wang’s account. To be sure, Plaintiff relies on
circumstantial evidence to establish an issue of material fact as to Dr. Wang’s deliberate
indifference. But that isn’t a problem. Our Court has consistently recognized that a plaintiff
can show subjective knowledge through circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., id. at 133. After
all, rarely will courts see a case where a defendant readily agrees that he was deliberately
indifferent. And here, the fact alone that Dr. Wang failed to refer Pfaller for further testing
when he demonstrated signs of an increasingly serious medical condition “raises an
21
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 22 of 52
inference [of] deliberate indifference.” Scinto, 841 F.3d at 232 (quoting Miltier v. Beorn,
896 F.2d 848, 853 (4th Cir. 1990)).
Our colleague in dissent chafes against the inferences for Pfaller that we must make
at this stage. Instead, the dissent accepts one conclusion and one alone: that Dr. Wang made
a mistake. To be sure, not just one mistake, but two mistakes, in two different years.
Because Dr. Wang uttered it, the dissent concludes that it must be. And apparently it need
not matter that we can only believe this conclusion if we believe Dr. Wang himself—
undoubtedly a question weighing on his credibility and therefore the province of a jury
alone. But the law here is simple: we cannot contravene Rule 56 by crediting Dr. Wang’s
self-serving affidavit. See Knibbs, 30 F.4th at 222.
Beyond that most fundamental error, the dissent’s view comes with other hitches.
Take one: the dissent suggests that there’s no evidence Dr. Wang even read or knew the
Guidelines’ cutoffs at all. See Dissent at 44 (arguing that the Guidelines’ existence is not
evidence that Dr. Wang knew the correct thresholds for further testing or treatment). But
even accepting that Dr. Wang had “access” to the Guidelines yet did not “actually use[]
that information,” id. (quoting Danser v. Stansberry, 772 F.3d 340, 348 n.10 (4th Cir.
2014)), that too demonstrates an issue of deliberate indifference for the reasons stated
earlier. That is, of course, if reasonable inferences are actually drawn as they should be at
summary judgment. And surely Dr. Wang himself would not go so far as to argue cavalierly
that he never even used the very Guidelines he testified were the Department’s standard of
22
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 23 of 52
care for treating hepatitis C. 3 See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842 (explaining that the Eighth
Amendment doesn’t allow prison officials “to take refuge in the zone between ignorance
of obvious risks and actual knowledge of risks.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The district court also found that Plaintiff established a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether Dr. Wang responded appropriately once he did finally request a fibroscan
for Pfaller. As noted earlier, Dr. Wang requested a fibroscan about a week after Pfaller’s
May 7 bloodwork came back. However, Dr. Wang did not definitively order a fibroscan
until July 11—around two months later. In the interim, Pfaller visited Dr. Wang several
times complaining of abdominal pain, swelling, a distended abdomen, and fluid retention.
All of these conditions are symptoms of advancing liver disease. Even though Dr. Wang
knew Pfaller “was on the list to be scheduled for a Fibroscan at VCU” and that no fibroscan
had taken place, J.A. 1958, Dr. Wang “did not press to have the previously ordered test
performed.” Pfaller, 2021 WL 1776189, at *7. By the time he did, it was too late. Based
on these facts, we believe a reasonable jury could conclude that Dr. Wang knew about the
risk of Pfaller’s advancing liver disease yet took no concrete actions between May and July
2018 to diagnose or treat the disease.
3
The dissent also blurs the deliberate-indifference standard with an intent-to-harm
standard. But it wasn’t Plaintiff’s burden to show that Dr. Wang acted with hope that Pfaller
actually be harmed. “[I]t is enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his
knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842.
23
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 24 of 52
Dr. Wang’s arguments don’t persuade us otherwise. He argues that he took some
steps to follow up with Pfaller during this time, such as ordering hepatitis C genotype
testing and prescribing medication to alleviate Pfaller’s symptoms. While that is more than
nothing, a jury might conclude that Dr. Wang, as a medical doctor, must have known these
half measures “were insufficient to mitigate the [true] risk of harm” from liver cirrhosis
and cancer. Iko, 535 F.3d at 241 (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted);
see also Heyer v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 849 F.3d 202, 211 (4th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he mere
fact that prison officials provide some treatment does not mean they have provided
‘constitutionally adequate treatment.’” (quoting De’lonta, 708 F.3d at 526)).
Indeed, we rejected a similar set of facts in an analogy in De’lonta. There, we
imagined a scenario where prison officials prescribed a painkiller to a prisoner after a fall,
but the prisoner continued showing symptoms that “by all objective measure, [showed that
he] require[d] evaluation for surgery.” De’lonta, 708 F.3d at 526. In that scenario, we
wondered, “[w]ould prison officials then be free to deny him consideration for surgery,
immunized from constitutional suit by the fact they were giving him a painkiller?” Id. The
answer was obvious: we thought not. See id.
Likewise, here. Dr. Wang wasn’t off the hook because he prescribed some
medication. It’s not a question of disagreement over Pfaller’s preferred care, as Dr. Wang
unpersuasively argues. See Hixson v. Moran, 1 F.4th 297, 303 (4th Cir. 2021). Rather, it’s
a question of whether Pfaller failed to receive adequate treatment at all.
The dissent repeatedly chastises this Court for interfering in a matter of “prison
administration.” Dissent at 39, 47–48. But that’s not the issue in this appeal; instead, the
24
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 25 of 52
issue here concerns a prisoner’s constitutional right to adequate medical care. And while
the dissent makes much of Virginia’s policy priorities, see id. at 49–51, it places
considerably less emphasis on this constitutional guarantee.
Lest we forget, prisoners are entirely “dependent on the State for food, clothing, and
necessary medical care.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 510 (2011). And a prison that
deprives prisoners of those needs “is incompatible with the concept of human dignity.” Id.
at 511. We cannot turn a blind eye to such constitutional infirmities. Cf. id. (“Courts may
not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve
intrusion into the realm of prison administration.”). In its rush to raise the alarm on a host
of policy concerns, the dissent ignores this Court’s most basic role—and the limits of that
role at summary judgment.
Based on the disputed issues of material fact here, we believe the appropriateness
of Dr. Wang’s actions should be resolved by a jury.
2.
Having concluded that Plaintiff raises a genuine issue of material fact as to an Eighth
Amendment violation, we turn to the other prong of the qualified-immunity analysis—
whether Pfaller’s right to treatment was clearly established. Of course, if Dr. Wang’s
conduct sufficiently resembles that of the defendants in Thorpe, the analysis of the two
prongs collapses into one, and we must find that Pfaller has made a showing sufficient to
overcome qualified immunity at this stage. See Thorpe, 37 F.4th at 934. But, while we
believe the facts here more closely resemble Thorpe than Taylor, we need not expressly
decide whether to collapse our qualified immunity inquiry as to Dr. Wang. That’s because,
25
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 26 of 52
either way, we reach the same outcome: Dr. Wang was on notice that he was violating
Pfaller’s constitutional rights.
First, we must define the right. The district court held that the right at issue is
“Pfaller’s Eighth Amendment right to receive adequate medical care and to be free from
officials’ deliberate indifference to his known medical needs.” Pfaller, 2021 WL 1776189,
at *10. This, Dr. Wang argues, is far too general. Instead, he proffers that the proper inquiry
is “whether it would have been clear to Dr. Wang that he was providing inadequate medical
care in violation of the Eighth Amendment by failing to schedule a specific type of follow-
up test (fibroscan) for Pfaller until July 2018.” Wang’s Opening Br. at 24.
We disagree with Dr. Wang’s overly narrow articulation. First, his argument is
premised almost entirely on direction from the Supreme Court regarding Fourth
Amendment claims. But as we recognized in Thorpe, the Supreme Court has not demanded
the same level of specificity in Eighth Amendment cases. Thorpe, 37 F.4th at 940; see also
Hope, 536 U.S. at 738–39 (declining to inquire whether “the very action in question has
previously been held” to violate the Eighth Amendment and rejecting qualified immunity
because “the risk of harm is obvious”); Taylor v. Riojas, 141 S. Ct. 52, 54 (2020) (per
curiam) (“Confronted with the particularly egregious facts of this case, any reasonable
officer should have realized that Taylor’s conditions of confinement offended the
Constitution.”).
As we explained in Scinto v. Stansberry, “[a] prisoner’s right to adequate medical
care and freedom from deliberate indifference to medical needs has been clearly
established by the Supreme Court and this Circuit since at least 1976.” Scinto, 841 F.3d at
26
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 27 of 52
236. As Pfaller’s treating physician, Dr. Wang was on notice at all relevant times—late
2015 through 2018—that he could not choose to delay or withhold treatment from Pfaller
when he knew it was medically necessary and was, in fact, mandated by the very
Guidelines he operated under. See id. (holding that it was clearly established in 2005 that
denying a prisoner his prescribed insulin can violate the Eighth Amendment); Jehovah v.
Clarke, 798 F.3d 169, 181–82 (4th Cir. 2015) (emphasizing that refusal to treat serious
medical needs can constitute deliberate indifference); Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 739
(4th Cir. 2009) (explaining that delay in treatment can violate Eighth Amendment).
Take Smith as one case that put Dr. Wang on notice. There, an inmate alleged that
he was prescribed treatment by his doctor for a foot infection but was unable to receive any
treatment because a nurse later ripped up the order slip that authorized it. Smith, 589 F.3d
at 737. The district court held there was no constitutional violation, but we reversed. We
explained that “mere delay or interference [with medical treatment] can be sufficient to
constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 739. By destroying the means for
the inmate to access treatment, the nurse ultimately deprived him of necessary care. See id.After Smith, Dr. Wang was on notice that he could not refuse necessary medical
care to Pfaller. In this case, his supervisor—the Department’s chief physician—had ordered
through the Guidelines that Pfaller receive further testing when his FIB-4 score rose above
a specific level. That level was high enough to indicate progression of his hepatitis C and
worrying signs of liver disease. Yet Dr. Wang allegedly ignored this directive and delayed
the necessary treatment—for two and a half years. Smith, along with our other Eighth
Amendment cases, put him on notice that this denial of care was constitutionally deficient.
27
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 28 of 52
Dr. Wang counters that Smith “does not establish, much less clearly establish, that
monitoring a patient’s chronic [hepatitis C virus] is unconstitutional.” Wang’s Reply Br. at
6–7. But clearly established law doesn’t require identical facts. None of the above cases,
of course, deal with the precise issue of hepatitis C treatment. But requiring such specificity
in the case of a treatment provider’s decisions would allow a doctor limitless opportunity
to deny medical care unless the precise required treatment for a specific underlying illness
had been addressed by our Court. We decline to distort qualified immunity into such an
absolute immunity.
Likewise, Dr. Wang was on notice that providing some care—even if unreasonable
or deficient—does not clear the constitutional bar. See Jehovah, 798 F.3d at 181–82
(establishing that providing “some treatment” but ignoring or failing to treat other serious
symptoms can violate the Eighth Amendment); De’lonta, 330 F.3d at 635. Thus, he was
on notice that failing to adequately respond to Pfaller’s signs of severe liver disease in 2018
could also be constitutionally deficient. The district court was correct to deny qualified
immunity to Dr. Wang at this stage.
C.
Next, we address whether Dr. Amonette, the Department’s chief physician who
designed the Guidelines, is entitled to qualified immunity. Given the difference in the roles
that Dr. Amonette and Dr. Wang played, it is necessary to analyze them separately. See
Thompson, 878 F.3d at 107. And ultimately, the two officials go on separate tracks.
We will assume without deciding that Dr. Amonette’s actions amounted to
deliberate indifference and turn directly to the question of how to consider the clearly
28
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 29 of 52
established prong of the qualified-immunity analysis. We conclude that Dr. Amonette’s
conduct appears closer to the defendants’ conduct in Taylor than in Thorpe, so we must
proceed to our usual “clearly established” inquiry. And, after evaluating the case law, we
conclude that Dr. Amonette was not on sufficient notice that he was violating a clearly
established right.
To start, it bears emphasizing that “the lodestar for whether a right was clearly
established is whether the law ‘gave the officials “fair warning” that their conduct was
unconstitutional.’” Iko, 535 F.3d at 238 (quoting Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall
Univ., 447 F.3d 292, 313 (4th Cir. 2006)). The district court defined the constitutional right
at issue for Dr. Amonette in the same way it defined it as to Dr. Wang: “Pfaller’s Eighth
Amendment right to receive adequate medical care and to be free from officials’ deliberate
indifference to his known medical needs.” Pfaller, 630 B.R. at 215. But while the case law
establishing that right sufficed to give Dr. Wang fair warning that he could not deny
necessary medical treatment to Pfaller as his primary care provider, it was not enough to
give Dr. Amonette fair warning that his system-wide treatment Guidelines for a new drug
were constitutionally deficient. Those contexts differ.
Like the defendants in Taylor, Dr. Amonette never “personally interacted with”
Pfaller. Taylor, 575 U.S. at 824. He only learned of Pfaller’s medical condition shortly
29
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 30 of 52
before Pfaller’s cancer diagnosis. So Dr. Amonette’s conduct could have violated the
Constitution only if the Guidelines themselves were inadequate. 4
On this question, we must remember qualified immunity’s purpose: it “gives
government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about
open legal questions.” Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 743. And here, there was—and remains—an
open question as to what kind of treatment protocol for administering direct-acting
antivirals is constitutionally sufficient in a prison system.
Dr. Amonette, for his part, created a system of prioritization where the sickest
inmates received treatment first. Those that did not qualify for treatment nonetheless
received continuous monitoring. At the time, the medical community and the Federal
Bureau of Prisons agreed. They recognized that while immediate treatment of all hepatitis
C patients was recommended, prioritization was reasonable where resources were limited.
The district court, of course, found there was a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the Department’s resources were actually limited. The limitation at issue here was
the number of providers at the VCU clinic who could provide treatment to inmates. Dr.
Amonette relied on VCU’s specialty providers because he believed it was not “clinically
4
To be sure, we do not hold that an official must have personally interacted with a
prisoner to have violated the Eighth Amendment. In fact, we have expressly rejected that
view in a case involving Dr. Amonette himself. See Gordon, 937 F.3d at 362 (“Put simply,
Amonette may not escape liability by claiming that he did not know the identities of the
inmates who would suffer under his policies.”). But the attenuation between Dr.
Amonette’s conduct and the risk here is relevant to why we find this case more similar to
Taylor than Thorpe and therefore why it is necessary to delve into the clearly established
law analysis.
30
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 31 of 52
appropriate” to have the Department’s own primary care providers prescribe the new
direct-acting antivirals “without specialty input.” J.A. 117.
Plaintiff’s expert, however, stated that the Department’s providers could have felt
comfortable treating inmates with direct-acting antivirals. Even assuming that is true, we
find it notable that this dispute over resources arises directly from the novelty of the drug
and the open question of how to appropriately prescribe it. Under these facts, we decline
to hold that Dr. Amonette was clearly on notice that he should have ordered the
Department’s primary care providers to prescribe this novel treatment rather than referring
patients to specialists for treatment.
Meanwhile, various Courts of Appeals opinions have cut different ways regarding
whether similar treatment guidelines pass constitutional muster or violate clearly
established law. Compare Atkins v. Parker, 972 F.3d 734, 739–40 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding
that prison medical director was not deliberately indifferent for failing to provide direct-
acting antivirals to all inmates), Hoffer v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 973 F.3d 1263, 1277
(11th Cir. 2020) (same), and Bernier v. Allen, 38 F.4th 1145, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 2022)
(finding there was no clearly established right in 2015 that inmate should immediately
receive new antiviral treatment), with Abu-Jamal v. Kerestes, 779 F. App’x 893, 900 (3d
Cir. 2019) (holding that denying direct-acting antivirals to inmate could constitute an
Eighth Amendment violation).
This varying case law shows the inherent gray area that Dr. Amonette was operating
in. And “qualified immunity protects public officials from bad guesses in gray areas.”
Durham v. Horner, 690 F.3d 183, 190 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks
31
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 32 of 52
omitted); see also Taylor, 575 U.S. at 825 (“We do not require a case directly on point, but
existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond
debate.” (quoting Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 741)). Tasked with designing a treatment regimen
for a novel drug, Dr. Amonette wasn’t given notice by our case law that his ultimate
choice—a system that prioritized treatment with direct-acting antivirals for the sickest
patients while offering monitoring for others—was (as we have assumed) deficient. And
the record, as the district court interpreted it, doesn’t sufficiently show that Dr. Amonette
knew that the Guidelines, while wanting, violated the Eighth Amendment. “In short, even
if the [Guidelines] contained the shortcomings that [Plaintiff] allege[d], no precedent on
the books in [2015] would have made clear to [Dr. Amonette] that [he was] [designing] a
system that violated the Constitution.” Taylor, 575 U.S. at 827.
That, of course, doesn’t mean that the novelty of a treatment regimen will always
immunize an official’s bad guess. There are certainly situations where the risk of medical
harm is obvious and a right to a specific treatment was clearly established. See Hope, 536
at 741 (“[O]fficials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in
novel factual circumstances.”). But we can’t say that’s the case here. A prisoner’s
purported right not to be subjected to a treatment regimen that prioritized antiviral
treatment to prisoners with the most advanced levels of fibrosis was not clearly established
when Dr. Amonette designed the Guidelines in 2015.
III.
The final question posed in this appeal is whether Dr. Wang is entitled to sovereign
immunity on Pfaller’s medical-malpractice claim. On appeal, Dr. Wang claims that he is
32
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 33 of 52
entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s medical-malpractice claim because, as a
Virginia state employee, he is shielded by derivative sovereign immunity. We agree.
In Virginia, to determine whether derivative sovereign immunity applies to a state
employee, a court must “focus on four, non-exclusive factors.” Patterson v. City of
Danville, 875 S.E.2d 65, 70 (Va. 2022). These factors are (1) “the function th[e] employee
was performing”; (2) “the extent of the state’s interest and involvement in that function”;
(3) “[w]hether the act performed involves the use of judgment and discretion”; and (4) “the
degree of control and direction exercised by the state over the employee.” James v. Jane,
282 S.E.2d 864, 869 (Va. 1980). “Because this multi-factor test is broadly worded and
capable of disparate applications,” courts should conduct a “fine-grained analysis that
looks to prior applications involving fact patterns that most closely parallel the case before
[them].” Patterson, 875 S.E.2d at 70 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And
here, we are aided by a recent Supreme Court of Virginia decision that involves another
medical-malpractice claim brought against none other than Dr. Wang himself. That
decision, Patterson v. City of Danville, which arrived while this appeal was pending,
largely controls the outcome here.
The first two factors—the nature of the function performed by the employee and the
extent of the Government’s interest and involvement in that function—are usually
considered together. See, e.g., Lohr v. Larsen, 431 S.E.2d 642, 644 (Va. 1993). In general,
“if the function that a government employee was negligently performing was essential to a
governmental objective and the government had a great interest and involvement in that
function, those factors would weigh in favor of the employee’s claim of sovereign
33
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 34 of 52
immunity.” Id. In contrast, “if that function has only a marginal influence upon a
governmental objective, and the government’s interest and involvement in that function
are ‘slight,’” sovereign immunity is disfavored. Id. (quoting James, 282 S.E.2d at 870).
The district court found that both factors weighed against sovereign immunity in the
present case. Specifically, the court noted that while Virginia “undoubtedly has an
important interest [in] the provision of medical care to inmates, . . . the state’s ‘paramount’
interest at [the prison] is incarceration.” Pfaller, 2021 WL 1776189, at *12. Based on its
reading of Virginia case law, the court concluded that “if the state’s paramount interest is
not the provision of medical care, these factors weigh against sovereign immunity.” Id.That reading was squarely rejected by the Supreme Court of Virginia’s subsequent
decision in Patterson. In that case, the court considered whether derivative sovereign
immunity extended to Dr. Wang as an employee at another, minimum-security facility.
Patterson, 875 S.E.2d at 67. The court noted that Dr. Wang’s function—providing medical
care to incarcerated patients—“was not simply a benevolent act of governmental grace.”
Id. at 72. Rather, the state “had a constitutional and statutory duty to provide medical care
to incarcerated patients” through physicians like Dr. Wang. Id. “In such circumstances, the
governmental ‘interest and involvement’ is at its apogee.” Id. (citation omitted). So, the
court concluded that “[t]here can be little doubt” that the first two factors of the test favored
sovereign immunity. Id.
This case fares no different. Dr. Wang’s function at Pfaller’s prison was to provide
medical care to incarcerated patients, just as it was in Patterson. Under federal and state
law, Virginia is required to provide such care. See Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-32(A); Williams
34
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 35 of 52
v. Commonwealth, 810 S.E.2d 885, 888 (Va. 2017). In those circumstances, the state’s
interest and involvement in that function “is at its apogee.” Patterson, 875 S.E.2d at 72.
The district court erred by discounting that interest and focusing too heavily on the state’s
“paramount” interest in incarceration. Under Patterson, the first two factors clearly weigh
in favor of finding sovereign immunity.
The third factor—whether the act performed involves the use of judgment and
discretion—is a closer call. If the challenged act involves “broad discretion,” that tends to
“weigh heavily in favor of a government employee’s claim of immunity.” Lohr, 431 S.E.2d
at 645. Conversely, if the employee is merely “performing a ministerial act,” they will
likely be liable in negligence. Id.
The district court found this factor weighed against sovereign immunity because
“Wang’s discretion was severely curtailed by the [Department] Guidelines.” Pfaller, 2021
WL 1776189, at *13. Specifically, it noted the Department “prescribed the course of
monitoring and treatment for inmates with Hepatitis C” via the Guidelines, “and Wang’s
role was to follow that prescription.” Id. So, it concluded that Dr. Wang was performing a
primarily ministerial act, which is not shielded by sovereign immunity.
This analysis undercounts Dr. Wang’s discretion. Although his discretion was
constrained by the Guidelines, it was not eliminated. Even if patients like Pfaller did not
meet the APRI and FIB-4 cutoffs, Dr. Wang could still request a referral if he concluded
that those patients were displaying other symptoms “suggestive of advanced liver disease.”
J.A. 240. And as the district court recognized, in certain “emergency circumstances” Dr.
Wang could circumvent the Guidelines criteria entirely. Pfaller, 2021 WL 1776189, at *13.
35
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 36 of 52
Decisions like these necessarily involve “the use of judgment and discretion.” Lohr, 431
S.E.2d at 645; see also Pike v. Hagaman, 787 S.E.2d 89, 93 (Va. 2016) (nurse “was
exercising discretion in caring for” plaintiff even if discretion was cabined by doctor’s
orders); cf. Patterson, 875 S.E.2d at 72 (noting that the Supreme Court of Virginia’s “cases
uniformly emphasize the highly discretionary character of professional medical care”).
Thus, while this factor tends to weigh against immunity, the district court overstated by
how much.
That leaves the fourth factor: the degree of government control over the employee.
In general, “[a] high level of control weighs in favor of immunity; a low level of such
control weighs against immunity.” Lohr, 431 S.E.2d at 646. At first glance, this fourth
factor (government control) appears to be at odds with the third factor (employee
discretion). However, the Supreme Court of Virginia has clarified that government control
has “diminished relevance . . . in the context of a medical professional.” Patterson, 875
S.E.2d at 71. After all, “when a government employee is specially trained to make
discretionary decisions”—like a medical professional is—“the government’s control must
necessarily be limited in order to make maximum use of the employee’s special training
and subsequent experience.” Lohr, 431 S.E.2d at 646. Therefore, when examining
government control of state physicians, we are less concerned with the government’s
control of the disputed action at issue (which necessarily involves the use of medical
judgment), and more concerned with the government’s control of the physician’s work
environment in general. See id. (examining whether the clinic controlled the patients seen
by the provider, the equipment he used, and the procedures he could perform).
36
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 37 of 52
For example, in Patterson, the Supreme Court of Virginia found this factor weighed
in favor of sovereign immunity because the evidence showed, among other things, that Dr.
Wang (1) “had no control over the patients that he was obligated to treat”; (2) was required
to use “City-owned medical equipment and supplies”; (3) “did not possess or control any
of the medical records of his patients”; (4) “was governed by medical policies and
procedures promulgated by the Virginia Board of Corrections”; and (5) was subject to
supervision by the prison director. Patterson, 875 S.E.2d at 73.
In the instant case, the district court concluded that this factor weighed in favor of
sovereign immunity for many of the same reasons: (1) Dr. Wang “cannot choose his own
patients or refuse to see certain patients”; (2) “[a]ll the equipment he uses is provided by”
the Department; and (3) he was required to follow the Department’s Guidelines when
treating hepatitis C patients. Pfaller, 2021 WL 1776189, at *14. Given the similarities of
these facts to those that the Supreme Court of Virginia found determinative in Patterson,
we agree with the district court that this factor favors sovereign immunity.
Overall, three of the four factors strongly weigh in favor of sovereign immunity,
and one only moderately weighs against it. Therefore, we conclude that the district court
erred by rejecting Dr. Wang’s sovereign-immunity defense.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity
to Dr. Wang on the Eighth Amendment claim. But we must reverse the denial of qualified
immunity to Dr. Amonette. Additionally, we reverse the denial of sovereign immunity to
37
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 38 of 52
Dr. Wang on the medical-malpractice claim. We remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
REVERSED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
38
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 39 of 52
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
The plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Wang fails as a matter of law.
The undisputed facts show that Dr. Wang was not deliberately indifferent to Pfaller’s
serious medical needs. Pfaller proffered no evidence that Dr. Wang “had actual
knowledge” that not ordering fibroscan testing when Pfaller’s FIB-4 scores were 1.46 and
1.48 created “an excessive risk” to his health. Danser v. Stansberry, 772 F.3d 340, 347 (4th
Cir. 2014). Nor was the risk “so obvious” that Dr. Wang must have known of it. Rish v.
Johnson, 131 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, all the evidence suggests that Dr.
Wang acted in good faith and was, at worst, negligent. Because there is no evidence to the
contrary, the “undisputed facts demonstrate” no violation of Pfaller’s constitutional rights.
Winfield v. Bass, 106 F.3d 525, 533 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
The Supreme Court has clearly instructed that Eighth Amendment deliberate-
indifference claims are the narrow exception to the general rule that federal courts should
not second-guess the medical judgments of doctors in state prisons. The Court has stated
in no uncertain terms that “an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care” or a
physician’s “negligent” diagnosis or treatment does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105–06 (1976). The majority contravenes Estelle and
collapses the distinction between deliberate indifference and negligence. In so doing, it
further thrusts the federal courts into the minutiae of state prison administration to the
detriment of the Constitution’s reservation of powers to the states and sound state
policymaking.
39
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 40 of 52
When deliberate indifference bleeds into negligence, the losers will ultimately be
inmates themselves. Inmates deserve decent medical care. Yet prison practice is not a
desirable option for many physicians. Many doctors prefer to treat patients who have not
been convicted of serious crimes. It would seem elemental that law should counter, not
contribute to, these disincentives. Yet while doctors outside prison gates enjoy robust
protections against negligent medical-malpractice suits, those treating the incarcerated
face, as here, Eighth Amendment negligence claims in contravention of the deliberate-
indifference standard. Virginia law, as the panel unanimously concludes, would not permit
this suit to proceed. See Patterson v. City of Danville, 875 S.E.2d 65 (Va. 2022). Yet
Virginia’s red light is superseded by the majority’s green.
Privileging prisoner suits in this manner will chase more willing or altruistic doctors
away. It is sad indeed that Pfaller died. It would also be sad, and very wrong, if we were to
lay his death at this doctor’s door. Diluting the deliberate-indifference standard, and
running roughshod over Virginia law, not only fractures our federal system. It will consign
inmates over time to ever more substandard medical care.
I.
We must journey to the headwaters of prisoner Eighth Amendment medical-care
claims in order to appreciate how undesirably far from the Supreme Court’s teachings we
have come. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). The language of limitation flows
throughout the Estelle opinion. Estelle concluded that “deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain
proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” 429 U.S. at 104 (quotation marks and citation
40
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 41 of 52
omitted). But this does not mean “that every claim by a prisoner that he has not received
adequate medical treatment states a violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 105. Rather,
“an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care cannot be said to constitute an
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain or to be repugnant to the conscience of
mankind.” Id. at 105–06 (quotation marks omitted). So, “a complaint that a physician has
been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of
medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 106. “Medical malpractice” is
not a “constitutional violation.” Id.The facts of Estelle are instructive. “Even applying the[] liberal standards”
applicable to pro se complaints, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to state an Eighth
Amendment claim against his treating physician. Id. at 107. The plaintiff’s doctors had
diagnosed his injury and prescribed medication, but the plaintiff complained that he should
have received additional diagnostic testing and treatment. Id. The Court disagreed, noting
that “the question whether an X-ray or additional diagnostic techniques or forms of
treatment is indicated is a classic example of a matter for medical judgment.” Id. The
“medical decision not to order an X-ray, or like measures, does not represent cruel and
unusual punishment” and is “[a]t most . . . medical malpractice.” Id. The Court held that
the plaintiff’s complaint against his doctor did not survive a motion to dismiss, id. at 108—
a conclusion that applies with special force here given that Pfaller needed to meet an even
higher burden at summary judgment, see infra Part II. Thus, Estelle created the Eighth
Amendment deliberate-indifference claim but, from the very beginning, limited such
41
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 42 of 52
claims to conduct that is far more egregious than mere negligence and indeed far more
egregious than anything that took place in this case.
Estelle controls this decision.
II.
Our circuit has tried to give effect to Estelle and its progeny by establishing a “very
high standard” that deliberate-indifference plaintiffs must meet to survive a defendant’s
motion for summary judgment. Danser, 772 F.3d at 347 (quoting Grayson v. Peed, 195
F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999)). The majority today ignores that standard, strays from Estelle
and our caselaw, and collapses the distinction between deliberate indifference and
negligence. In truth, the undisputed facts refute the suggestion that Dr. Wang was
deliberately indifferent to Pfaller’s medical needs.
A.
Let’s give Estelle its due. To establish deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must
“show[] that the prison official ‘kn[ew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to inmate
health or safety.’” Danser, 772 F.3d at 347 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994)). This is a “very high standard,” Grayson, 195 F.3d at 695, “which requires that a
plaintiff introduce evidence suggesting that the prison official had actual knowledge of an
excessive risk” to the plaintiff’s health or safety, Danser, 772 F.3d at 347 (emphasis
added). The official “must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn
that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id.
(quotation marks omitted). Crucially, a plaintiff’s “unsupported speculation” that the
defendant was aware of the risk “is insufficient to create a disputed issue of material fact
42
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 43 of 52
for purposes of summary judgment.” Id. at 348 n.10; see Elliott v. Leavitt, 99 F.3d 640,
644 (4th Cir. 1996).
Rather, a plaintiff can show actual knowledge in either of two ways: The plaintiff
can produce “direct evidence supporting a conclusion that the prison officials actually
knew” of a risk of harm—for instance, “deposition testimony or affidavit[s].” Rish, 131
F.3d at 1099. Short of such direct evidence, the plaintiff can demonstrate knowledge
through “circumstantial evidence” by showing that the “risk was so obvious that it can be
inferred that the prison officials knew of it.” Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842); see Brice
v. Va. Beach Corr. Ctr., 58 F.3d 101, 105 (4th Cir. 1995) (noting that the risk must be “so
obvious . . . that the [officer] did know of it because he could not have failed to know of
it.”). If the plaintiff cannot make at least one of these showings, his deliberate-indifference
claim fails as a matter of law. See Rish, 131 F.3d at 1100–01; Danser, 772 F.3d at 348–49.
B.
The undisputed facts here negate any possibility of deliberate indifference and
instead show Dr. Wang’s good faith. The plaintiff failed to produce even an iota of
evidence that Dr. Wang was deliberately indifferent to Pfaller’s serious medical needs. He
produced no direct evidence that Dr. Wang had actual knowledge of an excessive risk to
his health. Nor was the risk so obvious that Dr. Wang must have known of it. All Pfaller
can muster is “unsupported speculation” that Dr. Wang was aware of the risk, which “is
insufficient to create a disputed issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment.”
Danser, 772 F.3d at 348 n.10.
43
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 44 of 52
Pfaller first alleges that Dr. Wang was deliberately indifferent in failing to order a
fibroscan when Pfaller’s FIB-4 scores were 1.48 in October 2015 and 1.46 in July 2017.
See J.A. 1954–57; Br. of Appellee at 10–11. He argues that Dr. Wang was deliberately
indifferent because he ignored the VDOC guidelines recommending fibroscans for FIB-4
scores greater than 1.45. Br. of Appellee at 10–11; see J.A. 1954–55. But the VDOC
guidelines are not evidence that Dr. Wang knew the correct thresholds and ignored them:
“[D]efendants’ mere access to information [is] insufficient to show on summary judgment
that defendants actually used that information.” Danser, 772 F.3d at 348 n.10 (citing
Othentec Ltd. v. Phelan, 526 F.3d 135, 142 (4th Cir. 2008)). Pfaller produced no evidence
that Dr. Wang “had actual knowledge” that not ordering a fibroscan when Pfaller’s FIB-4
scores were 1.48 and 1.46 would create an “excessive risk” to his health. Id. at 347.
Nor was this risk “so obvious” that Dr. Wang must have known about it. Rish, 131
F.3d at 1099. The lack of obvious risk here is apparent given the undisputed facts: Pfaller
showed no symptoms of liver decompensation when these FIB-4 scores were calculated.
See J.A. 1713–14. Dr. Wang was a family medicine doctor, not a specialist in HCV. Id. at
1496–97. And the actual VDOC FIB-4 cutoff (1.45) was very close to and easily confused
with what Dr. Wang believed to be the cutoff (1.5), and a different VDOC HCV policy
used 1.5 as its cutoff. See id. at 1954–55. This is scarcely the sort of mistake that was so
obvious that Dr. Wang must have been aware of it.
Pfaller also argues that Dr. Wang exhibited deliberate indifference between May
and July 2018, when he ordered a fibroscan but did not immediately follow up. Br. of
Appellee at 10–11. But Pfaller has introduced no evidence that in so doing, Dr. Wang
44
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 45 of 52
“knew of and disregarded an excessive risk” to Pfaller’s health. Danser, 772 F.3d at 347
(quotation marks omitted and alterations adopted).
The following facts are undisputed: Dr. Wang calculated Pfaller’s FIB-4 score to be
2.18 on May 9, 2018 and ordered a fibroscan less than a week later, on May 14. J.A. 1958.
There was no way for Dr. Wang to conduct a fibroscan himself; he had to request that a
third party, VCU, schedule Pfaller for a fibroscan. Id. Dr. Wang saw Pfaller twice in June
for symptoms of liver disease and prescribed him seven different medications to relieve
those symptoms. Id. at 1958–59. At this time, Dr. Wang knew that Pfaller was already “on
the list to be scheduled for a Fibroscan at VCU.” Id. at 1958. When Pfaller appeared in Dr.
Wang’s clinic on July 11, 2018 “with complaints of fullness in his abdomen,” Dr. Wang
followed up with VCU, ordering a fibroscan “asap.” Id. at 1959.
As a matter of law, these undisputed facts do not establish deliberate indifference.
There is no evidence that Dr. Wang actually knew that his course of action—continuing to
treat Pfaller with medication while waiting for VCU to complete his request for a
fibroscan—created an excessive risk to Pfaller’s health. Nor was this risk so obvious that
Dr. Wang must have been aware of it: There is surely some reasonable period that a doctor
might wait after ordering testing from a third party. That decision, like the question whether
to order “additional diagnostic techniques” in the first place, “is a classic example of a
matter for medical judgment.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107. Treating Pfaller with medication
while waiting a month or two for VCU to conduct a fibroscan was a “medical judgment”
that “does not represent cruel and unusual punishment.” Id.45
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 46 of 52
C.
Even assuming, purely arguendo, that Dr. Wang had actual knowledge of a
substantial risk to Pfaller’s health, no case can be made that Dr. Wang deliberately
disregarded that risk. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104; Danser, 772 F.3d at 347. There is not a
single shred of evidence that Dr. Wang had any animus or other motive to deliberately
ignore Pfaller’s medical needs. Why would he? Did he possess some malevolent
temperament? Did he bear some grudge against Pfaller? The majority does not and cannot
suggest any such thing. Given the dearth of evidence of deliberateness in the record, no
reasonable person could conclude that this element of the deliberate-indifference standard
was met.
Far from deliberately ignoring Pfaller’s needs, the undisputed facts show that Dr.
Wang tried to treat Pfaller’s HCV and made, at worst, honest mistakes about the FIB-4
threshold for fibroscan testing. Dr. Wang did not order a fibroscan when Pfaller’s FIB-4
scores were below what he believed to be the threshold, but he did order one as soon as
Pfaller received a score above that value. See J.A. 1958. Once again, when Pfaller presented
with symptoms of liver disease in June 2018, Dr. Wang prescribed him seven different
types of medication. Id. at 1958–59. And when VCU had not scheduled Pfaller’s fibroscan
after two months, Dr. Wang demanded that he receive the test “asap.” Id. at 1959. A
deliberately indifferent doctor would not have done any of this.
The majority repeatedly concedes that Dr. Wang provided Pfaller with medical care
for his HCV but contends that this fact is irrelevant to whether he was deliberately
indifferent. See Maj. Op. at 23–24. The majority’s position raises the unknowable question
46
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 47 of 52
of how much medical care is enough and abandons this whole area of law to indeterminacy.
Often the best medical care lies in monitoring and observation, not in disturbing patient
stasis. But given the majority’s rule, physicians will be tempted to overprescribe and
overtest to avoid Eighth Amendment claims—the easiest path for minimizing liability. The
majority ultimately substitutes judicial judgment for medical judgment. But our chambers
are not a doctor’s office. We cannot don our white coats and apply our own preferred
diagnostic and treatment regimens in place of physicians’ medical judgment. By forsaking
Estelle’s high standard for deliberate-indifference claims, the majority encourages courts
to venture into medical judgments that we are woefully unqualified to make.
Indeed, the majority’s opinion reads like a routine negligence case and of course, in
such a case, the inferences at the summary-judgment stage belong to the non-moving party.
What the majority neglects, however, is the fact that the value of any immunity and
heightened standard of proof lies in resolving claims at an earlier rather than later stage of
litigation. This whole dimension of the problem is ignored by my good colleagues. In
addition to being wrong on the outcome, the majority is wrong on the process. By
embracing routine full-dress litigation even in the face of so many undisputed material
facts, it has doubled down on the difficulties of its position and further undermined the
value that the deliberate-indifference standard was intended to have.
III.
A.
When federal courts gratuitously interfere with state prison administration, we
damage the Constitution’s differentiation between the enumerated powers of the federal
47
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 48 of 52
government and the residual powers of the states. It is true that Article I, section 8 is a great
charter of federal enumerated power, including the national economic engine that is the
Commerce Clause. See U.S. Const., art. I, § 8. But at the same time, the “powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const. amend. X. These residual
powers must include something of meaning if our system of dual sovereignty is to be
preserved and the states not relegated to the position of lesser sovereigns or inferior
partners. As Justice Iredell noted long ago, “[e]ach State in the Union is sovereign as to all
the powers reserved. . . . [T]he United States have no claim to any authority but such as the
States have surrendered to them.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 435 (1793).
The often salutary growth of federal power since must not obscure the democratic
virtues that state decision-making still retains. If the residual power of the states is to mean
anything, it would seem to preserve a good amount of state autonomy over state institutions
like schools and prisons. The administration of schools, for example, implicates highly
local, policy-driven judgments about how the state “provides for the education of its
children”—“an area in which [the Court] has traditionally deferred to state legislatures.”
San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 40 (1973). State prisons and their
medical facilities implicate the same basic local policy concerns. “[C]ourts are ill equipped
to deal with . . . problems of prison administration,” which “require expertise,
comprehensive planning, and the commitment of resources.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416
U.S. 396, 405 (1974). For this reason, “[t]raditionally, federal courts have adopted a broad
hands-off attitude toward problems of prison administration.” Id. at 404. Operating prisons
48
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 49 of 52
and providing medical care to inmates are among the residual powers most clearly reserved
to the states. The majority’s granular intrusion is, yet once again, exactly what Estelle v.
Gamble sought to avoid.
Those who control the levers of federal power—be they legislators or judges—risk
arrogating to themselves powers that our Constitution never meant them to have. I am
disappointed that my esteemed colleagues in the majority have joined the company of
federal overlords who view the states as little more than junior varsity sovereigns.
B.
This case is a perfect example of how a federal court can undermine a state’s policy
decisions by allowing a suit for a constitutional violation to go forward where no such
violation exists. The plaintiff in this case brought, in addition to his federal deliberate-
indifference claim, a state medical-malpractice claim based on Dr. Wang’s alleged
negligence in treating Pfaller’s HCV. J.A. 80–81. All members of this panel rightly agree
that in light of the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision in Patterson v. City of Danville, 875
S.E.2d 65 (Va. 2022), Pfaller’s malpractice claim is barred by state sovereign immunity. I
readily join in the majority’s fine opinion on this point. See Maj. Op. Part III.
Patterson is important because it demonstrates how Virginia conceives of its own
interest in determining how to provide medical care to its prisoners. Virginia applies a four-
factor test to determine whether a government employee is protected by sovereign
immunity. Id. at 70. These factors are “(i) the nature of the function performed by the
employee; (ii) the extent of the [state’s] interest and involvement in the function; (iii) the
degree of control and direction exercised by the [government employer] over the employee;
49
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 50 of 52
and (iv) whether the act complained of involved the use of judgment and discretion.” Id.(quotation marks omitted). Crucially, the Patterson Court held that the state’s
“governmental interest and involvement” in “provid[ing] medical care to incarcerated
patients . . . is at its apogee.” Id. at 72 (quotation marks omitted). Given this fact, along
with the discretionary nature of medical care and the degree of governmental control over
the doctor, the Court held that the medical-malpractice suit was barred by state sovereign
immunity. Id. at 73.
The Virginia Supreme Court has thus determined that medical-malpractice suits
alleging a doctor’s negligence implicate the state’s weighty interest in providing medical
care to prisoners and are therefore barred by sovereign immunity. One might disagree with
Virginia’s invocation of sovereign immunity in these circumstances, but mere
disagreement with a state policy does not license a federal court to cavalierly supersede it
in the name of enforcing a federal right.
That is precisely what the majority does today. In one breath, the majority rejects
Pfaller’s state medical-negligence claim on the basis of sovereign immunity. With the next,
the majority allows a federal claim predicated only on negligent acts to proceed in the guise
of a deliberate-indifference claim. The majority effectively supersedes the state’s judgment
that sovereign immunity ought to bar medical-negligence suits. It accomplishes the precise
end that the state sought to avoid: subjecting state prison doctors to suit for what are
essentially negligence allegations. This case, like all too many others, is a classic example
of how federal constitutional activism has wrested from the states control over their own
institutions.
50
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 51 of 52
The consequences will be severe. Virginia’s interest in claiming sovereign
immunity from medical-malpractice suits is grounded in legitimate concerns about its
prison doctors being inundated with such claims. The majority invites a big increase in
lawsuits that threaten to lodge in federal judges the power to second-guess state prison
doctors’ exercise of “medical judgment.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107. Under the majority’s
rule, a plaintiff offering nothing more than mere speculation that a doctor was deliberately
indifferent can overcome the doctor’s immunity and force him to stand trial.
It does not take an economist to predict what will happen when a state’s prison
doctors are hauled into federal court for any perceived deficiency in medical care and
branded with the stigma of deliberate indifference for honest mistakes: Good doctors will
be strongly discouraged from providing their services in state prisons. Thus, unwarranted
federal interference with state prisons works not only to the detriment of our federal system,
but to the well-being of prisoners themselves.
IV.
The moral of this case is simple. In the words of the great Scottish poet Robert
Burns, “The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men gang aft agley.” Robert Burns, To a Mouse
(1785). The Supreme Court, with the best of intentions, sought to crack the door a little bit
to a limited category of prisoner medical-mistreatment claims where the high standard of
deliberate indifference was met. But those best intentions have gone badly awry. Over time,
51
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1555 Doc: 84 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 52 of 52
what the Supreme Court intended as a small crack of the door has been flung wide by the
lower federal courts. This case and Estelle v. Gamble bear scant resemblance.
Not only that. The “best-laid” plans of the majority will “gang aft agley” as well, as
its admirable desire for adequate medical care for inmates will likely occasion just the
opposite.
This did not need to be. That the majority bumps so squarely against both
constitutional law and the law of unintended consequences should have given it pause. I
do concur in Parts II.C and III of its opinion. I respectfully dissent in part and would reverse
the judgment below in its entirety and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
52