Nevada prison wrong to deny inmate cataract surgery, court rules 
 
 A federal appeals court has ruled that Nevada prison officials may have shown “deliberate indifference” in refusing to allow cataract surgery to an inmate who was functioning with one good eye. 
 
 A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that convicted killer John Colwell was entitled to a trial challenging the prison’s “one good eye” policy. 
 
 The court, in its 2-1 decision, said the prison may be guilty of cruel and inhumane punishment in refusing the surgery. 
 
 Colwell, 67, was admitted to the prison in 1991 to begin a life without possibility of parole term for a murder in Douglas County. While in prison he developed eye problems and had cataract surgery to fix his left eye. He developed a cataract soon after on his right eye that left him blind in that eye since 2002. 
 
 That cataract has never been treated despite requests by Colwell. The court, in the majority opinion written by Judge Barry Silverman, said monocular blindness is a serious medical need. 
 
 Colwell, according to the court, suffered physical injuries due to the blindness including running his hand through a sewing machine on two occasions in the mattress factory, regularly hitting his head on the upper bunk of his cell and bumping into other inmates, which resulted in fights. 
 
 The court said the prison ignored the recommendation of two eye specialists for surgery. “The evidence shows the Nevada Department of Corrections denied cataract surgery on him as he had one good eye,” said the court. 
 
 Silverman said a reasonable jury could find prison officials denied treatment because of the policy to “endure reversible blindness in one eye if he can see out of the other.” 
 
 Judge Jay Bybee dissented, saying there was no evidence that the prison had a “one good eye” policy or that the state was deliberately indifferent to Colwell’s condition. 
 
 Bybee said Colwell takes part in religious services, plays cards, attends a computer class and reads a book a day when “he is doing well.” He walks for exercise but cannot play sports. He does not suffer physical pain. 
 
 “There are many Americans who have monocular vision and are perfectly functional,” said Bybee. “They hold jobs, drive cars, play sports, watch movies and move among the binocular population without us even being aware of their condition.” 
 
 In a footnote, Bybee said the vast majority of states grant driver’s license to individuals with monocular vision. ||||| As far as the state of Nevada is concerned, one good eye is apparently all that a prisoner needs. 
 
 The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sees it differently. 
 
 Denying cataract surgery “on the basis of an administrative policy that ‘one eye is good enough for prison inmates’ is … the very definition of deliberate indifference,” the court said Thursday in a 2-1 ruling reinstating a lawsuit by a 67-year-old inmate who has been refused surgery since 2002. 
 
 The inmate, John Colwell, has been in prison since 1991 and is serving life without the possibility of parole. He had cataract removal surgery for his left eye in 2001 but developed a cataract in his right eye later that year and has been blind in that eye since 2002. 
 
 He said the loss of perception has caused him some problems: he’s run his hand through a sewing machine twice while working in the prison mattress factory, run into a concrete block and split open his forehead, and bumped into some other inmates, twice getting into fights. 
 
 Several prison doctors have recommended cataract surgery, but the prison has refused, saying Colwell had 20/20 vision in his left eye so the treatment wasn’t essential. In response to one of his grievances, he said a doctor told him that under the policy of Nevada’s prison system, “one eye only is needed.” 
 
 Colwell’s lawsuit accused the state of violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment by being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. A federal judge dismissed the suit, describing the case as a difference of opinion over medical treatment and saying Colwell couldn’t show that the state was acting in “conscious disregard of an excessive risk to his health.” 
 
 But the appeals court said partial blindness is a serious medical condition, and a jury could reasonably find that Cowell is suffering because the state has disregarded a risk to his health. 
 
 “Although blindness in one eye is not life-threatening, it is no trifling matter,” said Judge Barry Silverman in the majority opinion. “…Colwell continues to suffer blindness in his right eye, which is harm in and of itself, along with the other harms and dangers that flow from that.” 
 
 Other courts, including several judges in Nevada, have reached similar conclusions in other prison cases, said Silverman, joined by Judge William Fletcher. But in a dissenting opinion, Judge Jay Bybee said courts have been divided on the issue, with good reason: Decisions on medical treatment in prison, for conditions that are not painful or life-threatening, should ordinarily be left up to prison officials. 
 
 “Colwell is not suffering any pain from his cataract and he is fully functioning in the ordinary tasks of life,” Bybee said. “His mishaps are not unexpected given the vicissitudes of life, the aging process, and his incarceration.” 
 
 “Being blind in one eye may be considered a disability (but) it is not crippling,” Bybee said, listing such notables as Theodore Roosevelt, James Joyce, Alice Walker and Sammy Davis Jr. among those who managed with monocular vision. He said Nevada’s decision to deny surgery to Colwell was “reasonable” and also contended the Ninth Circuit’s legal test for “deliberate indifference,” established in 1992, is too lenient and is out of step with other courts. 
 
 The debate unfolds here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/08/14/12-15844.pdf.
– Sure, having two eyes is nice, but "one eye is good enough for prison inmates." That was the policy apparently in play when the state of Nevada denied a partially blind prisoner cataract surgery—but such a policy is also "the very definition of deliberate indifference," a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The court has allowed John Colwell's lawsuit to go forward after the convict, serving life in prison for murder, accused the state of inflicting cruel and unusual punishment, the Las Vegas Sun and San Francisco Chronicle report. Colwell says he's been blind in his right eye since 2002 but was denied cataract removal surgery despite doctors' recommendations. Though Colwell's lawsuit was initially thrown out because he couldn't prove the state was acting in "conscious disregard of an excessive risk to his health," the appeals court said yesterday that "the evidence shows the Nevada Department of Corrections denied cataract surgery on him as he had one good eye," and the state may be guilty of cruel and inhumane punishment. A judge in favor of the 2-1 decision to reinstate the lawsuit added, "although blindness in one eye is not life-threatening, it is no trifling matter." Colwell says he's suffered numerous injuries as a result of his partial blindness, including getting into fights with other prisoners after he accidentally bumped into them.