proving the affirmative defense of official immunity, did not assert in their motion that Aumua had complied with the applicable district rules, policies, and guidelines; that the rules, policies or guidelines afforded her discretion in their implementation; or that she had been granted the discretion to disregard the rules, policies, and guidelines. At the evi-dentiary hearing, Beach, Aumua’s supervisor and the director of health services for the district, testified that Aumua and other nursing aides were provided with several different guides with checklists to use i sal where plaintiffs alleged that defendant E.M.T. had negligently treated him because the facts in the petition did not establish on their face that the defendant’s actions were discretionary); Geiger, 974 S.W.2d at 517 (<HOLDING>). The trial court erred in entering summary
holding that prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the constitution holding required changes in prison policy not burdensome in light of the overall cost of operating the prison holding a publisheronly rule was constitutional because prison administrators are accorded deference and rule was reasonably related to the penological interest of maintaining internal prison security holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population holding prison nurse was not entitled to official immunity related to allegations that she failed to follow the prison policy related to inmate prescriptions because the prison policy regarding the maintenance and administration of inmates prescriptions does not depend on discretionary judgment calls