In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S 97 (1976), while finding that petitioner Gamble, an inmate of the Texas Department of Corrections, did not state a sufficient claim, the Supreme Court did discuss and articulate the rationale and rule for allowing prison inmates to claim violations of constitutional Eighth Amendment violations and statutory violations pursuant to 42 USC 1983. In doing so, the Court first reviewed its opinions involving punishments to prisoners that had been held repugnant as cruel and unusual and incompatible with the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." (Estelle, 429 US at 102.) The Court then went on to state: "These elementary principles establish the government's obligation to provide medical care for those whom it is punishing by incarceration. An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met. When that happens, serious results may ensue, including pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological purpose." (429 US at 103.) Yet the standard for such a claim is a high one. It is one of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, regardless of how it is evidenced. Certainly that does not mean that every claim by a prisoner that he has received inadequate medical treatment states a valid constitutional or statutory claim. "Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner." (429 US at 105.) In fact, Mr. Gamble's claims against his prison physician were found not cognizable under section 1983. The Court reached this conclusion because Gamble had been seen on a large number of occasions, given an appropriate diagnosis, as well as appropriate treatment in the form of bed rest, muscle relaxants and pain relievers for his lower back injury.