# Gloria Coleman v. Nurse Ruth Rahija, Nurse at Imcc--Oakdale

> Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · June 5, 1997 · 114 F.3d 778

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490308

## Case

- **Full name:** Gloria COLEMAN, Appellee, v. Nurse Ruth RAHIJA, Nurse at IMCC—Oakdale, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 5, 1997
- **Citations:** 114 F.3d 778; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13115; 1997 WL 295754
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Gibson
- **Judges:** McMillian, Arnold, Gibson, Memillian
- **Cited by:** 472 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490308

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that inmate's failure to provide verifying medical evidence in the record "to establish the detrimental effect of delay in medical treatment precludes a claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs"
- holding that a registered nurse was not liable for punitive damages because she relied on, and attempted to follow, a physician's instructions
- discussing symptoms of early labor, finding that “[a] layperson would have recognized the necessity for a doctor’s attention” when the inmate reported bleeding, pain, and contractions six minutes apart
- holding jury may determine punitive damages where defendant's conduct involves "evil motive or intent" or "reckless or callous indifference" to federally-protected rights

## Opinion text

FLOYD R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Though I am in full accord with the Court’s decision to affirm the imposition of compensatory damages against Nurse Ruth Rahija, I cannot agree that the district court’s award of punitive damages should be reversed. In my view, the rather startling and disturbing facts of this case reveal the district court did not commit clear error when it found that Rahija acted with “callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 , 103 S.Ct. 1625, 1640 , 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983). Furthermore, I believe the district court correctly determined that Nurse Rahija’s behavior was “simply inexcusable” and of a type that “must be punished in an appropriate way so that prison officials recognize the seriousness of this lack of action and guard against it in the future.” Coleman v. Rahija, No. 4-91-CV-50260, at 24 (S.D.Iowa Jan. 2, 1996); see also Smith, 461 U.S. at 54 , 103 S.Ct. at 1639 (“The focus is on the character of the tortfeasor’s conduct — whether it is of the sort that calls for deterrence and punishment over and above that provided by compensatory awards.”). As a result, I am unable to conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it deemed punitive damages appropriate. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the Court’s opinion vacating the district court’s punitive damages award.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490308. Public record. Not legal advice.