May 30, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1024
JERRY WILLIAM WEBER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
MARIE WEFERLING,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
Jerry William Weber on brief pro se.
Valerie Stanfill and Berman & Simmons, P.A. on brief for
appellee.
Per Curiam. Plaintiff contends that deliberate
indifference is established by his uncontradicted allegations
that (1) he advised defendant a Minnesota doctor had
successfully prescribed Triamcinolone for plaintiff's skin
condition after hydrocortisone had worsened the problem, (2)
he urged defendant to review the Minnesota records, (3) but
defendant refused to check the record and instead prescribed
hydrocortisone, which, once again, exacerbated plaintiff's
skin condition.
We agree with the magistrate judge and district
court that plaintiff failed to raise any genuine issue of
material fact for trial. Defendant's uncontradicted
affidavit stated that both Triamcinolone and hydrocortisone
are used to treat skin conditions like plaintiff's, but that
Triamcinolone, while stronger, has more risk for side
effects. Because defendant, a physician's assistant, did not
feel comfortable prescribing Triamcinolone, she advised
plaintiff to see a doctor. Plaintiff eventually did see the
doctor, who prescribed Triamcinolone, which alleviated
plaintiff's problem. Plaintiff acknowledged below that his
skin problems would come and go and that defendant was not
responsible for the delay in scheduling a doctor's
appointment. Rather, plaintiff's contention was that
defendant's refusal to heed plaintiff's warning that
hydrocortisone had exacerbated a past flare up or to check
-3-
the medical record and ascertain that a doctor had previously
prescribed Triamcinolone successfully manifested deliberate
indifference to plaintiff's medical needs.
We disagree. Neither defendant's failure to check
plaintiff's record before treating his eczema nor her
knowledge that hydrocortisone had failed on a previous
occasion shows deliberate indifference to plaintiff's needs.
At best, there was a disagreement among medical professionals
as to the course of treatment. Such a disagreement does not
rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Watson
v. Caton, 984 F.2d 537, 540 (1st Cir. 1993); Sires v. Berman,
834 F.2d 9, 13 (1st Cir. 1987). Defendant did not bar
plaintiff from a remedy which had worked in the past; she
told him to consult the prison doctor. The referral was not
a refusal to treat plaintiff, but rather a further step in
the management of plaintiff's problem. That several months
elapsed before plaintiff actually saw the doctor was not
defendant's fault, as plaintiff acknowledged below.
Affirmed.
-4-