Moore v. Corizon Medical Services et al (INMATE 1)
Filing
47
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/29/17. (djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
THURMON E. MOORE II,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES
and DR. HOOD,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv865-MHT
(WO)
OPINION
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Thurmon E.
Moore, a state prisoner, filed this lawsuit challenging
the medical care he has been provided for pain in his
hip under the Eighth Amendment.
This lawsuit is now
before the court on the recommendation of the United
States
Magistrate
Judge
that
defendants’
summary judgment should be granted.
motion
for
Also before the
court are plaintiff’s objections to the recommendation.
After an independent and de novo review of the record,
the court concludes that plaintiff’s objections should
be overruled and the magistrate judge’s recommendation
adopted as the court is convinced that plaintiff has
not
met
his
potentially
judgment
on
burden
of
admissible
the
issue
putting
evidence
of
forward
to
sufficient
survive
deliberate
summary
indifference.
However, the court’s review of the evidence submitted
by defendants did raise significant concerns which must
be addressed.
The court has several concerns about the following
section of Dr. Hood’s sworn affidavit, which the court
is concerned may contain significant misstatements and
misleading content.
First, he attests:
“18. Following this appointment and after
consultation with the site medical staff and
the regional medical staff, the decision was
made
to
discontinue
Mr.
Moore’s
Lortab
prescription, and prescribe the non-narcotic
pain medical Norco as an alternative pain
treatment. (COR008)....”
Affidavit of Dr. Hugh Hood (doc. no. 31-1) at 8.
The
court is concerned that this statement may be false, if
Norco and Lortab are both narcotics with the active
ingredient hydrocodone, an opiate.
2
How, if so, could a
physician swear under oath that Norco is non-narcotic?
This must be explained.
The affidavit continues:
“19.
Mr.
Moore
did
not
voice
any
complaints or submit any sick call request
forms related to his medications between May
24, 2012, and August 14, 2012. (COR067). Mr.
Moore
received
and
attended
a
follow
appointment
with
the
site
physician
at
Limestone on August 14, 2012, at which time
they continued to discuss the treatment plan
for Mr. Moore’s osteoarthritis and the site
physician
confirmed
the
absence
of
any
significant changes in Mr. Moore’s overall
condition before renewing his prescription for
Norco. (COR009).”
This statement seems to have been offered to show that
after being switched to a ‘non-narcotic’ medication,
plaintiff
had
no
complaints.
But
the
court
is
concerned that this is again misleading, if Norco is a
narcotic.
The affidavit next states:
“20. In response to a sick call request
form submitted on August 20, 2012, the medical
staff summoned Mr. Moore to the health care
unit at Limestone for sick call on August 21,
2012 (COR071-73), and a subsequent appointment
with the clinician on August 23, 2012. During
the appointment, Mr. Moore remained ‘upset’
because of the medical decision to discontinue
3
his narcotic pain regimen in favor of a nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory
medication.
(COR018). As indicated in the medical records,
Mr. Moore reported to the medical staff that he
had received narcotic pain medications for more
than two and a half years and that he wished to
meet with the site physician. (COR018-19).”
Affidavit of Dr. Hugh Hood (doc. no. 31-1) at 8-9.
Oddly, this section gives the impression that plaintiff
remained upset because he had been switched to Norco,
which
is
strange
in
light
of
the
prior
paragraph’s
statement that he had no complaints while on Norco.
Furthermore, the affidavit fails to explain that, at
that
point,
Medical
plaintiff
Notes
Motrin”).
had
no.
(doc.
been
switched
31-2)
at
to
20
Motrin.
(“Continue
The affidavit also omits that plaintiff said
he was upset because he felt that “Dr. Hood stopped”
his pain medication.
Medical Notes (doc. no. 31-2) at
19.
While
this
listing
is
not
exhaustive,
one
troubling aspect of the affidavit bears mentioning.
describing
the
medical
grievance
process,
explains the appeal process as follows:
4
Dr.
more
In
Hood
“Below the portion of the form designated for
the ‘Response,’ the following notation appears:
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL THIS REVIEW YOU MAY
REQUEST A GRIEVANCE APPEAL FORM FROM THE HEALTH
SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR. RETURN THE COMPLETED
FORM TO THE ATTENTION OF THE HEALTH SERVICE
ADMINISTRATOR. YOU MAY PLACE THE FORM IN THE
SICK CALL REQUEST BOX OR GIVE IT TO THE
SEGREGATION SICK CALL NURSE ON ROUNDS.”
Affidavit
(doc.
no.
31-1)
at
5-6.
The
court
is
concerned that the affidavit could be read as designed
to give the impression that this notice is a direct
quote both in terms of content and style, and that this
notice would be easily noticeable by a prisoner.
could be viewed as again misleading.
forms
contained
verbiage
is
in
not
the
only
record
not
As the grievance
plainly
written
This
in
show,
all
this
capital
letters, but also is written in far smaller font than
any of the other instructions on the page.
Grievance
Records
allegedly
(doc.
no.
31-3)
at
52-61.
This
misleading presentation of facts is most concerning.
In an order separate from the judgment that will be
entered today, defendants will be required to address
these concerns.
If these concerns remain after that,
5
the court will decide later what action, if any, would
be appropriate.
DONE, this the 29th day of September, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?