Adams v. Guntharp, et al
ORDER denying 85 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 5/2/2012. (srw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
MICHAEL VINCENT ADAMS,
ADC # 99530
G. DAVID GUNTHARP, et al.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Settlement (Doc. No. 85). Mr. Adams
contends that the settlement agreement reached after mediation on January 2, 2003, required the
Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) staff to provide him access to a “tanning box” during
the winter months for treatment of a skin condition. (Doc. No. 85 at 1-2.) Plaintiff cites to a portion
of the settlement agreement that states:
ADC shall make arrangements for a physician, not affiliated with
Correctional Medical Services and who is a specialist in matters
related to chronic psoriasis, to examine Inmate Valachi/Adams within
21 working days after all parties have signed this agreement. This
specialist will evaluate appropriateness of care and recommend a
protocol of treatment which could be rendered within the prison
Defendants state they were unable to locate the original settlement agreement, but cite to the
January 15, 2003, treatment notes of the physician who evaluated Plaintiff pursuant to the settlement
agreement. (Doc. No. 104.) The physician only recommended that Plaintiff continue “Balnetar”
baths daily, application of certain ointments for “flare-ups” of his condition, and exposure to
ambient outdoor sunlight as much as possible. (Doc. No. 104.) A prescription for a tanning bed or
light box was not recommended.
While Plaintiff has provided a medical record from The University Hospital of Arkansas
Dermatology Clinic recommending “UVB therapy” and an order for a “light box” (Doc. No. 99 at
5), this medical record is dated a year later, on January 14, 1994, and does not appear to be a part
of the settlement agreement.
Furthermore, after reviewing the transcript of the settlement
conference, the Court concludes that no light box or tanning box was contemplated. (Doc. No. 106.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 85) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2012.
JOE J. VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?