Opinion
October 16, 1997
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.),
Our review discloses that the denial of dermatological treatment for the facial keloids (scars) of petitioner, a prison inmate, was not arbitrary and capricious nor did it violate his constitutional rights. To establish an unconstitutional denial of medical care for an inmate under the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it must be shown that there has been "deliberate indifference to [the inmate's] serious medical needs" ( Matter of Singh v. Eagen, 236 A.D.2d 654, 655). Petitioner has failed to make such a showing. Respondents, on the other hand, have presented the opinion of an examining physician that treatment of petitioner's keloids is cosmetic in nature rather than medically necessary. As respondents have no obligation to provide inmates with medically unnecessary services, the judgment dismissing petitioner's CPLR article 78 proceeding is affirmed ( see generally, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-104).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Carpinello, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.