Sama v. Hannigan
669 F.3d 585 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Physicians are entitled to qualified immunity from a prisoner's Fourteenth Amendment claim for unwanted medical treatment if the law was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional under the specific circumstances, such as when the patient's refusal of consent is ambiguous and the physicians act based on intra-operative medical judgment.
Facts:
- Carrie Rahat Sama, an incarcerated person, was diagnosed with cervical cancer requiring a radical hysterectomy.
- Having only one remaining ovary and desiring future fertility through a surrogate, Sama repeatedly informed her physicians, including Dr. Hannigan and Dr. Benoit, that she would not consent to the removal of her left ovary.
- The physicians advised Sama that they would attempt to conserve the ovary, but it might need to be removed if it appeared abnormal or if anatomical constraints made it necessary to complete the hysterectomy.
- Sama signed a consent form for a 'Radical hysterectomy and any other indicated procedures, lymph node dissection' and initialed a general risk that other organs might need to be removed.
- However, Sama specifically refused to initial the portions of the consent form detailing the risks of sterility associated with ovarian surgery.
- During the operation, Drs. Benoit and Hannigan observed that the ovary was grossly abnormal, had multiple cysts, and was adhered to surrounding structures.
- Believing the ovary was non-functional, potentially malignant, and that its removal was necessary to access the lymph node basin and complete the hysterectomy, the surgeons removed it.
- A post-operative pathology report revealed the ovary was not cancerous but had a hemorrhagic corpus luteum, and the physicians could not state conclusively that it was incapable of producing eggs.
Procedural Posture:
- Carrie Rahat Sama sued Dr. Benoit, Dr. Hannigan, and other officials in the United States District Court, asserting violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The district court screened the complaint and allowed the case to proceed only against Drs. Benoit and Hannigan.
- Drs. Benoit and Hannigan moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court granted the physicians' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Sama's case with prejudice.
- Sama, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do physicians violate a prisoner's clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right to refuse medical treatment when, after the prisoner consents to a radical hysterectomy but specifically objects to the removal of her ovary, the physicians remove the ovary intra-operatively based on their medical judgment that it is abnormal, non-functional, and its removal is necessary to complete the consented-to procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Owen, J.
No, the physicians did not violate a clearly established right and are entitled to qualified immunity. A competent person has a liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment, but this right is not absolute and must be balanced against relevant state interests, especially in the prison context. Here, Sama's refusal was ambiguous because she simultaneously consented to a radical hysterectomy after being told the ovary might need to be removed as part of that procedure. The physicians acted on their intra-operative medical judgment that the ovary was abnormal, potentially life-threatening, and its removal was necessary to complete the surgery to which Sama had consented. Given the lack of pre-existing case law with similar facts compelling a conclusion that the physicians' actions were unlawful, the right was not 'clearly established' in these specific circumstances, thus entitling the physicians to qualified immunity.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Haynes, J.
Yes, the physicians' conduct, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Sama, violated her clearly established rights. The constitutional right to refuse medical treatment is bedrock law, and a case with identical facts is not required to put officials on notice. Sama's evidence shows she vociferously and unequivocally refused consent for the ovary's removal under any circumstances. The majority errs by resolving factual disputes in the doctors' favor and by creating an 'ambiguous consent' argument that the doctors themselves never made; their defense was that they believed they had consent, a disputed issue of fact. To hold that a doctor’s intra-operative judgment can override a patient’s express refusal effectively nullifies the right to refuse treatment, which should not be protected by qualified immunity.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high threshold for overcoming qualified immunity in the context of a prisoner's right to refuse medical treatment. It demonstrates that a generally established constitutional right may not be considered 'clearly established' in a specific, factually complex scenario involving ambiguous consent and the exercise of professional medical judgment. The decision narrows the path for holding state-employed physicians liable, suggesting that as long as a patient's refusal is not absolute and unequivocal in light of a broader consent, doctors may be shielded from liability for actions taken based on intra-operative medical necessity. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to defeat qualified immunity in medical consent cases that do not mirror existing case law precisely.
Unlock the full brief for Sama v. Hannigan