KEMP V. BALBOA 23 F.3d 211 (8th Cir 1994) CASE BRIEF

KEMP V. BALBOA

23 F.3d 211 (8th Cir 1994)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Kemp (P), prisoner brought an action against Balboa (D), prison guard, under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983. The District Court entered judgment for P after the jury found for the P and awarded him only nominal damages. P challenged the award of only nominal damages as based upon inadmissible evidence, and D appealed the attorney fees awarded against him.

FACTS: P was a prisoner. D was a correctional 'utility' officer. P had suffered from grand mal epilepsy since childhood. Medical staff knew that P suffered from seizures. The Center gave P a prescription of medication to control his grand mal epilepsy seizures. It was dispensed on a weekly basis. P was permitted to keep this medication in his cell. D repeatedly confiscated P's epilepsy medication, and flushed it down the toilet. D ignored the pleas of P and a fellow inmate to return the medication. P's epileptic seizures increased. During seizures, P involuntarily bit and attempted to swallow his tongue, beat his head on the concrete floor and bled from the mouth. P filed a 1983 suit claiming that D had deprived P of his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment by deliberate indifference to P's serious medical needs, through confiscating medication P used to control his epileptic seizures. Maness, a licensed practical nurse testified that P failed to pick up his medication from the prison infirmary on seven separate occasions. She had reviewed portions of P's medical file relating to the dispensing of medication. P objected to the introduction of the medical file into evidence because D had not given the file to P pursuant to a pretrial order requiring the exchange of exhibits prior to trial. D then claimed it would be used only to refresh Maness' recollection, and would not be offered 'as evidence.' P objected repeatedly to Maness' reading of these records while she was testifying on direct examination. P asked the court to instruct the jury that Maness was testifying from the medical records rather than her own personal knowledge, but the court denied that request. Maness then testified that P failed to procure his medication on three occasions in September 1989, and one time in October 1989. P testified that her only knowledge of the subject came from her reviewing the medical charts, which someone else had prepared. P moved to strike Maness' testimony because she had no personal knowledge of P's failure to pick up his medication. The district court denied the motion to strike. The jury found for P on this claim, but awarded him no actual damages, one dollar in nominal damages, and one dollar in punitive damages.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner