Moore v. Corizon Medical Services et al (INMATE 1)
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,
CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES
and DR. HOOD,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
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
summary judgment should be granted.
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
However, the court’s review of the evidence submitted
by defendants did raise significant concerns which must
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
First, he attests:
“18. Following this appointment and after
consultation with the site medical staff and
the regional medical staff, the decision was
prescription, and prescribe the non-narcotic
pain medical Norco as an alternative pain
Affidavit of Dr. Hugh Hood (doc. no. 31-1) at 8.
court is concerned that this statement may be false, if
Norco and Lortab are both narcotics with the active
ingredient hydrocodone, an opiate.
How, if so, could a
physician swear under oath that Norco is non-narcotic?
This must be explained.
The affidavit continues:
complaints or submit any sick call request
forms related to his medications between May
24, 2012, and August 14, 2012. (COR067). Mr.
Limestone on August 14, 2012, at which time
they continued to discuss the treatment plan
for Mr. Moore’s osteoarthritis and the site
significant changes in Mr. Moore’s overall
condition before renewing his prescription for
This statement seems to have been offered to show that
after being switched to a ‘non-narcotic’ medication,
concerned that this is again misleading, if Norco is a
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
his narcotic pain regimen in favor of a nonsteroidal
(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,
statement that he had no complaints while on Norco.
Furthermore, the affidavit fails to explain that, at
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
troubling aspect of the affidavit bears mentioning.
explains the appeal process as follows:
“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.”
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.
As the grievance
letters, but also is written in far smaller font than
any of the other instructions on the page.
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
If these concerns remain after that,
the court will decide later what action, if any, would
DONE, this the 29th day of September, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?