claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment must show that the
defendant acted with "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs").
Specifically, respondents submitted evidence showing that Dr. Mahakian
believed the drug Depakote to be safe for a patient with appellant's
medical record and that Dr. Mahakian promptly discontinued the
prescription upon appellant's request.
In the absence of contrary evidence submitted by appellant,
this evidence entitled respondents to judgment as a matter of law on
appellant's claim. Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598,
602-03, 172 P.3d 131, 134 (2007) (recognizing that when the party moving
for summary judgment will not bear the burden of persuasion on an issue,
that party may satisfy its summary judgment burden by "submitting
evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party's
claim"). We acknowledge that appellant's proffered contrary evidence calls
into question the objective reasonableness of Dr. Mahakian's belief that
Depakote was safe for appellant. We conclude, however, that it would be
unreasonable to infer from this evidence that Dr. Mahakian was
deliberately indifferent to the risks inherent in prescribing Depakote to
appellant. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Wood, 121 Nev. at 729, 121 P.3d at
1029 (recognizing that, while inferences must be drawn in favor of the
nonmoving party, those inferences must be reasonable).' As appellant
I-In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the affidavit
attached to appellant's summary judgment opposition wherein appellant
stated that he communicated to prison medical staff that the Depakote
regimen was worsening his pain and that, in response to these
communications, Dr. Mahakian increased the Depakote dosage. Although
the record on appeal confirms that Dr. Mahakian increased the dosage of
appellant's prescription, there is no record support for the remainder of
continued on next page...
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
failed to demonstrate that a question of material fact existed regarding
Dr. Mahakian's deliberate indifference, summary judgment was proper,
and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
J.
Parraguirre
Si J.
Saitta
cc: Seventh Judicial District Court Dept. 2
Amadeo J. Sanchez
Attorney General/Carson City
White Pine County Clerk
...continued
the above-described statement. In other words, the communications upon
which appellant based his affidavit do not reasonably give rise to an
inference that Dr. Mahakian was deliberately indifferent to appellant's
medical needs when he increased the Depakote dosage. See NRCP 56(e)
(requiring an affidavit in opposition to a summary judgment motion to "set
forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence").
2 Tothe extent that appellant has raised other arguments on appeal,
we conclude that these arguments do not warrant reversal of the district
court's summary judgment.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A