JAMAL MURRAY v. STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND DR. TIMOTHY HEYD - Articles

All Content

JAMAL MURRAY v. STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND DR. TIMOTHY HEYD

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Mar 30, 2022

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Tracy L. Bradford, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Robert A. Klingler, ROBERT A. KLINGLER CO., L.P.A., Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Tracy L. Bradford, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Robert A. Klingler, ROBERT A. KLINGLER CO., L.P.A., Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): GILMAN, KETHLEDGE, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Dr. Thomas Heyd served as the Chief Medical Officer of the prison where Jamal Murray was previously incarcerated and was also Murray’s treating physician. During his time in prison, Murray suffered from a condition known as deep- vein thrombosis, which, in Murray’s case, involved the formation of venous blood clots in his legs. Murray relied on the medication Coumadin to abate his condition. After many weeks passed with inadequate monitoring and the prescribing of too low a dosage of Coumadin, Murray suffered from a cerebral blood clot that has left him permanently blind.

Murray timely brought an Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Heyd for deliberate indifference to Murray’s serious medical needs. Dr. Heyd sought qualified immunity in a motion for summary judgment, which the district court denied. He now seeks a review of that ruling through the present interlocutory appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s determination that Dr. Heyd is not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Attachments: