Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling in favor of a psychiatrist and warden at the Plainfield Correctional Facility who were accused of failing to appropriately care for a prisoner who had an adverse reaction to a medication given to him to reduce symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia.
In its opinion, the Seventh Circuit said that the evidence presented on record is not sufficient to convince a rational jury that the defendants violated the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.
The opinion was issued on July 23 by judges Kenneth Ripple, Thomas Kirsch II and John Lee.
Appellant Brad Passwater has been a prisoner at the Plainfield Correctional Facility for several years and suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. Starting in April 2020, the prison’s psychiatrist, Dr. Rippetoe, who works remotely, began decreasing Passwater’s dosage of a certain medication and adding a different medication. Passwater said that after the first dose of the changed medication, he didn’t notice any change to his mental health, but after the second dose, he began to feel paranoid and delusional. Eventually, he was placed on 24/7 suicide watch.
In April 2026, Passwater suffered a psychotic episode, and Dr. Daniel Rippetoe gave orders to the prison’s on-site nurse to give Passwater an emergency dose of a psychotropic medication.
After giving Passwater the medication, no one followed up with him to see if he was experiencing adverse effects, according to court documents. The medication exacerbated Passwater’s psychosis and he began harming himself, gouging out his eyes and ripping out his testicles. He underwent several operations and remains blind.
To prevent such incidents, the Plainfield Correctional Facility often uses trained inmates, called suicide companions, to help prison officials monitor individuals on suicide watch. During monitoring shifts, those companions typically stand outside of the suicidal prisoner’s cell and watch them through a small window at the top of the cell door.
During Passwater’s incident, however, his assigned companion was sitting down and did not see Passwater hurt himself, according to court documents.
Passwater sued Rippetoe and the prison’s deputy warden, Tricia Pretorius, for violating his Eighth Amendment rights by exhibiting “deliberate indifference” to his medical needs. Passwater specified that Rippetoe failed to follow up after ordering the nurse to give him the medication, and Passwater said he believed Pretorius was aware that the prison’s suicide companions were not properly monitoring inmates but didn’t do anything about it.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled in favor of Rippetoe and Pretorius.
To prevail on the claim that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights, Passwater had to prove 1) that he had an objectively serious medical condition 2) that prison officials were deliberately indifferent toward his condition. He also had to prove that defendants’ deliberate indifference caused his injury.
According to case law, deliberate indifference “entails something more than mere negligence but something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.” Peterson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 986 F.3d 746, 752 (7th Cir. 2021) (citation modified); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994).
While the parties don’t dispute that Passwater suffered a serious medical condition, the question for the courts was whether a reasonable jury could find that Rippetoe acted with deliberate indifference when he failed to follow up with Passwater.
On this point, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Passwater failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that Rippetoe acted with deliberate indifference. In its opinion, the court wrote that Passwater failed to present evidence that “no minimally competent” physician would have behaved like Rippetoe.
While Passwater pointed to Rippetoe’s deposition testimony acknowledging that a post-medication assessment is “standard” and “common” according to IDOC policy, “standard” and “common” are words to support arguments of negligence, not deliberate indifference, according to the circuit court. Proving deliberate indifference requires showing that no minimally competent professional would’ve responded the same way, according to case law.
To prevail on his claim that deputy warden Tricia Pretorius violated his Eighth Amendment rights, Passwater had to prove deliberate indifference under his argument that Pretorius knew that the prison’s suicide companions were not properly monitoring inmates on suicide watch.
While the circuit court judges agreed that Pretorius failed to correct the suicide companions’ noncompliance with the prison’s policy, they argued that Passwater’s claim against Pretorius ultimately failed for lack of showing causation. The suicide companion’s failure to properly monitor Passwater during his shift supersedes the cause of Passwater’s injuries, severing any liability placed on Pretorius, the court stated.
The case is Brad Passwater v. Tricia Pretorius et al, No. 25-1149.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.