Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HAMPE v. HOGAN

September 26, 1974

ERIC HAMPE
v.
M. R. HOGAN, WARDEN



The opinion of the court was delivered by: NEALON

 NEALObN, District Judge.

 Following the diverting colostomy, petitioner continued to have the same rectal abscess difficulty. This surgery had exhausted all methods of treatment deemed necessary and available in the federal system for this medical problem. The petitioner then sought the advice of Dr. Arthur F. Snyder, M.D., a staff surgeon at Geisinger, who replied that there were three possible courses the petitioner may follow, viz., to reanastomose the colon and leave the rectum in place; to resect the rectum and effect a Miles Procedure upon the petitioner; or to allow the diverting colostomy to remain in place; and that he attests that medically, the best alternative was to remain with the diverting colostomy in an effort to determine whether the abscesses could cure themselves, since if the first is performed the rectum may cease functioning, and that the second offers substantial risks since a high mortality rate is associated with that procedure.

 The petitioner has received letters from three private surgeons which in essence say that a remedy, such as a sphincter transplant, may be available although such operations are still in the "primitive stages" and that, of course, petitioner must first be examined to determine what his real problem is and whether this surgery may cure it. These letters are the sole support for petitioner's contention that he is being denied adequate medical treatment in the federal system and therefore should be permitted to enter a private hospital for examination in an effort to secure medical relief. Petitioner's counsel has indicated that no additional expert testimony will be adduced at any hearing on this matter *fn1" and that the petitioner will rely solely on the letters discussed above, and one more from the University of Virginia, which is to be produced at the hearing.

 There are two standards used by the courts in determining whether the medical treatment afforded federal prisoners is proper; viz., whether the prison medical authorities have "abused their discretion" in treating petitioner, e.g., Roy v. Wainwright, 418 F.2d 231 (5 C.A. 1969), or whether the treatment rendered has been "reasonable". Blanks v. Cunningham, 409 F.2d 220 (4 C.A. 1969). By whatever standard, the prisoner cannot be the judge of what treatment need be rendered to him. Bretz v. Superintendent, 354 F. Supp. 7 (W.D.Va. 1973). "In the absence of factual allegations of obvious neglect or intentional mistreatment, the courts should place their confidence in the report of reputable prison physicians that reasonable medical care is being rendered." Cates v. Ciccone, 422 F.2d 926 (8 C.A. 1970).

 I am, as all concerned are, in sympathy with the petitioner's medical plight, but the degree of medical treatment afforded him is in full accord with our judicial sense of fair and adequate treatment.

 Accordingly, this petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby dismissed.

 William J. Nealon / United States District Judge

 Dated: September 26, 1974

 ORDER

 Now this 26th day of September, 1974, in accordance with the memorandum filed this date, petitioner's application for a writ of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.