Gomez v Reardon et al

Filing 18

ORDER entered by Judge Harold A Baker on 8/1/14. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 2 is denied. The defendants shall file their answers within 21 days of the date of this order. A case management order will be entered shortly after the answers are filed. See written Order. (TC, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 01 August, 2014 02:06:31 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ARIEL GOMEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL REARDON,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-2172

ORDER DENYING PETITION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
This is a case brought under the provisions of 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. The court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).
The plaintiff, Ariel Gomez, is a prisoner committed to the Illinois Department of
Corrections (IDOC) and is assigned to the Danville Correctional Center (DCC).1 Gomez claims
violations of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from deliberate indifference to his serious
medical conditions.
Gomez names as defendants Daniel Reardon, the Warden of DCC; Salvador Godinez, the
Director of IDOC; Dr. Paul Talbot, the Medical Director at DCC; and Wexford Health Sources,
Inc. (Wexford). The IDOC outsources medical care to Wexford. Specifically, Gomez claims
that the defendants are deliberately indifferent to his serious medical conditions of leg swelling
and pain which the plaintiff attributes to blood clots and a possible deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
He also claims migraine headaches, dizziness, blurred vision, vomiting, and nodules or lumps on
the back of his head that he believes may indicate a serious neurologic malady. Gomez claims
that his medical problems began in mid-May 2014.
On July 23, 2014, the court held a full hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction. He seeks an order for the defendants to send him to
a hospital for adequate and appropriate medical tests, and appropriate follow-up care based on
the test results. The plaintiff appeared personally,2 accompanied by one of his counsel, David
Benjamin Owens, Esq. Defendant Dr. Talbot appeared by video conference, accompanied by his

1

Gomez is apparently a model prisoner. In 17 years of incarceration, he hasn’t had a
single disciplinary ticket. He will, if good time is considered, be eligible for consideration for
parole in three years. At the time of the hearing, he was housed in the DCC infirmary.
2

For what it is worth, the court observed the plaintiff to be a young man in his middle
thirties. He moved easily and with alacrity between his seat at counsel table and the chair in the
witness box. He was alert and oriented as to person, time and place. He answered all questions
responsively and directly.

counsel, Joseph N. Rupcich, Esq., who also represented defendant Wexford. Each of the
remaining defendants appeared through Assistant Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Cook, Esq.
The plaintiff testified fully about his subjective symptoms, physical condition, and
suspected maladies.3 Dr. Talbot4 testified at great length, referring to plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, about
the plaintiff’s treatment and the medical care he received at DCC. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 was
received in evidence by agreement. The exhibit is a copy of the plaintiff’s recent medical
records at DCC. The plaintiff also offered in evidence copies of three medical journal articles
that had been tendered to counsel for Dr. Talbot prior to the hearing. The articles were not
received in evidence for lack of foundation.
The dispositive issue before the court, the sine qua non, is whether, at this point, the
plaintiff has made at least a prima facie showing that Talbot was “deliberately indifferent” to the
plaintiff’s serious medical needs. At this point, he has not.
The plaintiff’s testimony taken at face value and granting that it showed a serious
medical need, the controlling question remains: Was Talbot deliberately indifferent to that need?
To constitute a constitutional violation there must be deliberate indifference. King v. Kramer,
680 F.3d 1013, 1018-19 (7th Cir. 2012) tells us the answer. To constitute a constitutional
violation, the treatment must be “so far out of bounds that it was blatantly inappropriate or
not even based on medical judgment.” (Emphasis added). See also Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d
516 (7th Cir. 2008) (excruciating pain from growing testicular cysts lasting several years prior to
inmate’s parole); Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[for] a year-and-a-half the
defendants persisted in a course of treatment known to be ineffective”); Hartsfield v. Colburn,
371 F.3d 454 (8th Cir. 2004) (dental treatment withheld because of detainee’s behavioral
problems, despite bleeding and swollen gums and signs of infection).
Dr. Talbot testified explicitly about the procedures and treatment rendered each time
Gomez presented himself at the DCC medical care unit.4 5 Dr. Talbot examined Gomez and
observed no neurological deficits or problems. His eyes responded appropriately to light. Motor
skills and sensory responses were normal. Dr. Talbot ordered, and later reviewed, the results of
an optometry exam, which did not reflect any problems such as iritis or retinal problems. The
optometry exam simply indicated that Gomez needed reading glasses. When Gomez presented
and complained of dizziness he was given Meclizine, a medicine to treat vertigo. When he
presented and complained of lower leg pain (“trace edema,” according to Dr. Talbot), he was

3

See Transcript, d/e 17, pp. 4-38.

4

Dr. Talbot, in addition to his M.D., holds a Ph.D. in pharmacology.

4

See Transcript, d/e 17, pp. 38-99.

5

Gomez, at the time of the hearing, had been housed in the DCC infirmary for eight days
for observation to identify a pattern causing the headaches and to see how the medications were
working. Before the court hearing, Gomez told Dr. Talbot he was ready to leave the infirmary.
2

given ibuprofen.6 When he presented and complained of severe headaches, he was given
Excedrin Migraine pain reliever, and later was prescribed Imitrex (a migraine medication), and
for his neck muscle strain he was presecribed a muscle relaxer, Robaxin (methocarbamol).
Gomez reported that the medications were effective, at least temporarily.
Dr. Talbot testified to the medical basis for his prescribed treatment. Perhaps one could
argue, or some other physician might testify, that the medical judgment was flawed, but that in
and of itself would not support a finding of deliberate indifference in the constitutional sense.
The same is true of the plaintiff’s complaints of pain and swelling in his lower leg that he feared
indicated blood clots that would go to his lungs or heart and kill him. Dr. Talbot gave medical
reasons why the plaintiff’s fears were ill founded and the treatment given was appropriate to the
condition presented. As to the nodules on the back of Gomez’s head, Dr. Talbot measured and
examined them and was of the opinion that they were not indicative of some serious underlying
condition. Again, some other physician might disagree and have prescribed a series of other
tests. Again, that is not the inquiry at this point in the litigation. Dr. Talbot based his diagnosis
and treatment on medical reasons. He was not being deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s
medical claims.
Based on the preliminary record presented to the court, the court disagrees that the
plaintiff has been shown deliberate indifference to his medical needs in a constitutional context.
The court has not addressed the additional factors of irreparable injury or likelihood of success
that are usually considered on applications for preliminary injunctive relief. There is no
occasion to discuss them since the cardinal question of deliberate indifference is dispositive.
It is therefore ordered that the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction [2] is denied. The defendants shall file their answers within twenty-one
days of the date of this order. A case management order will be entered shortly after the answers
are filed.
Enter this 1st day of August, 2014.

/s/Harold A. Baker
_________________________
Harold A. Baker
United States District Judge

6

Dr. Talbot believed the swelling to be related to arthritis from an injury Gomez suffered
in 1997. A 2010 xray showed a deformity in the left distal tibia. After eight days in the
infirmary prior to the hearing, Gomez had no pain, tenderness, or swelling in his leg. Dr. Talbot
explained that if there were blood clots near Gomez’s ankle, the clots would be unlikely to move
to his upper body. Dr. Talbot also spoke to the danger of treating inmates with unnecessary
blood thinners: “he can go back and get in a fight and hemorrhage; and without a DVT, that
would be a big problem.” Transcript, d/e 17, p. 97.
3