Jorgenson v. Schiedler
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding. Petitioner, an inmate of the Oregon Women’s Correctional Center, appeals from a summary judgment for defendant. We hold that there are genuine issues of material fact as to the medical care that petitioner is receiving for edema in her ankles. Therefore, we reverse and remand.
The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution requires that a prisoner “be afforded such medical care in the form of diagnosis and treatment.as is reasonably available under the circumstances of [the prisoner’s] confinement…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Penrod v. CuppOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Priest v. CuppCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1976
- Mueller v. CuppCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
3Cited by7 opinions
- Billings v. GatesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
- Moore v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
- Keenan v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- Klinefelter v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- Dalton v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.