Henderson v. Correct Care Solutions

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 5/22/2014. (nmfn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

MARCUS HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 13-713-SLR

Marcus Henderson, Georgetown, Delaware. Prose.
Daniel A. Griffith, Esquire of Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLC, Wilmington, Delaware.
Counsel for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JJ-,

Dated: May
2014
Wilmington, Delaware

R6bt~
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Marcus Henderson ("plaintiff') is a Delaware prison inmate housed at the
Sussex Correctional Institution ("SCI") in Georgetown, Delaware at all times relevant to
his claim. On April 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint and motion to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correct Care Solutions, LLC
("defendant"), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of
his Eighth Amendment rights. (D.I. 1; D.l. 2) The court granted plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis on May 10, 2013. (D.I. 6) Plaintiff subsequently returned the
requisite payment authorization on May 16, 2013. (D.I. 7) Defendant filed an answer to
the complaint on September 17, 2013. (D.I. 13) Plaintiff did not serve any discovery
requests upon defendant before the close of discovery on January 27, 2014. (D.I. 15;
D. I. 22 at 1) Currently before the court is defendant's motion for summary judgment on
all claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56( a). (D.I. 21)

II. BACKGROUND
Defendant has provided medical services to prison inmates in the State of
Delaware since July 10, 2010. (D.I. 22 at 1, 2) Plaintiff contends that defendant
wrongfully prescribed him medications, which caused him to cough up blood and
caused bleeding from his rectum. (D.I. 2 at 3) Plaintiff further contends that
defendant's actions are part of a pattern of deliberately interfering with the serious
medical needs of inmates. Plaintiff experienced the above bleeding symptoms between
October 6, 2012 and October 8, 2012. (D.I. 1 at 3) Following a bleeding incident,
plaintiff was taken to Beebe Medical Center on October 8, 2012 for treatment, where he

was stabilized with IV hydration. (D.I. 22, ex. A) Plaintiff then underwent an upper
endoscopy on the morning of October 9, 2012, which revealed a 1 em pre-pyloric antral
ulcer, which was nonbleeding and had no bleeding stigmata. (/d.) Plaintiff was
diagnosed with a gastrointestinal bleed, a gastric ulcer, duodentitis, anemia, and
hypovolemia, and was discharged from the hospital on October 9, 2012. (/d.) He was
advised to avoid any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which he had
been taking for his chronic back pain. (/d.) Plaintiff received follow-up treatment at
Nanticoke Gastroenterology, P.A. in Seaford, Delaware on November 2, 2012, where
he was cleared for a second upper endoscopy to examine the status of his gastric ulcer.
(/d.) He underwent his follow-up procedure at Seaford Endoscopy Center in Seaford,
Delaware on January 9, 2013. (/d.)

Defendant contends that there is no evidence to

show that it is responsible for plaintiff's medical condition. (D.I. 22 at 2)

Ill. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A court shall grant summary judgment only if "the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56( c). The moving party bears
the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n.10 (1986). "Facts that
could alter the outcome are 'material,' and disputes are 'genuine' if evidence exists from
which a rational person could conclude that the position of the person with the burden of
proof on the disputed issue is correct." Horowitz v. Fed. Kemper Life Assurance Co., 57
F.3d 300, 302 n.1 (3d Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted). If the moving party has

3

demonstrated an absence of material fact, the nonmoving party then "must come
forward with 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."' Matsushita,
475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56( e)). The court will "view the underlying facts
and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing
the motion." Pa. Coal Ass'n v. Babbitt, 63 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 1995). The mere
existence of some evidence in support of the nonmoving party, however, will not be
sufficient for denial of a motion for summary judgment; there must be enough evidence
to enable a jury reasonably to find for the nonmoving party on that issue. See Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,249 (1986). If the nonmoving party fails to make a
sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it has the
burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The court will not grant the entry of
summary judgment without considering the merits of defendant's unopposed motion.
Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding that a district court
should not have granted summary judgment solely on the basis that a motion for
summary judgment was not opposed).

IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated his constitutional rights when it wrongfully
prescribed him medication that caused his bleeding symptoms and then subsequently
failed to provide him with appropriate medical treatment. The Eighth Amendment
proscription against cruel and unusual punishment requires that prison officials provide
inmates with adequate medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). In order
to set forth a cognizable claim, an inmate must allege (1) a serious medical need and

4

(2) acts or omissions by prison officials that indicate deliberate indifference to that need.
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104; Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). "[A]
prisoner's claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need requires expert
testimony when the seriousness of the injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay
person." Heath v. Shannon, 442 F. App'x 712, 716 (3d Cir. 2011). A prison official is
deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious
harm and fails to take reasonable steps to avoid such harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 837 (1994). A prison official may manifest deliberate indifference by
"intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05.
"[A] prisoner has no right to choose a specific form of medical treatment," so long as the
treatment provided is reasonable. Lasko v. Watts, 373 F. App'x 196, 203 (3d Cir. 2010)
(quoting Harrison v. Barkley, 219 F.3d 132, 138-140 (2d Cir.2000)).
Plaintiff failed to conduct any discovery, and consequently failed to develop any
evidence to support the necessary elements of his Eighth Amendment claim. The
record shows that plaintiff received medical treatment for his bleeding symptoms, as
well as follow-up treatment to manage his gastric ulcer. Absent evidence to the
contrary, there is no indication that defendant intentionally delayed or denied plaintiff's
access to medical care. Further, plaintiff has introduced no evidence to prove that
defendant caused his bleeding by prescribing him inappropriate medications, or that
defendant had any knowledge of his ulcer prior to the bleeding incident. A lay person is
not equipped to conclude what role, if any, prescribed medications played in his illness,
and plaintiff did not offer any expert testimony to prove that defendant's conduct was a
proximate cause of his claimed injury. Similarly, plaintiff failed to put forward any

5

evidence to support his claim that his incident was part of a pattern of defendant's
deliberate indifference to SCI inmates' serious medical needs. While plaintiff stated in
his complaint that what happened to him has happened to other inmates, he has offered
no evidence to support his allegations. The court concludes that there is no evidence,
expert or otherwise, to indicate deliberate indifference. Accordingly, the court dismisses
all claims against defendant.

V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants defendant's motion for summary
judgment. (0.1. 21) An appropriate order shall issue.

6