Wimberly v. Wexford Medical Services et al
Filing
65
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1) Defendants' supplemental summary judgment motion is denied (d/e 48 ). 2) A status conference is set for February 24, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff shall appear by video conference. Defense counsel shall appear in person. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 2/04/2014. (VM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 04 February, 2014 02:55:44 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
ANTHONY WIMBERLY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. OBAISI, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
10-CV-3308
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Shawnee Correctional Center,
pursues a claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
regarding his ankle.
On September 5, 2012, the Court denied summary judgment to Dr.
Obaisi. Dr. Obaisi filed supplemental materials, which were docketed as a
supplemental summary judgment motion. That motion was granted
because Plaintiff failed to respond. Plaintiff moved to reconsider,
asserting that he had not received a copy of the supplemental motion.
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider was granted, and Plaintiff has now
Page 1 of 9
responded to the supplemental motion for summary judgment, which is
before the Court.
The facts are as follows. In 2001, Plaintiff fell while detained in the
Cook County Jail, injuring his ankle. Plaintiff had surgery on the ankle
while still detained by the Jail. Plaintiff was purportedly told by the
surgeon that the surgery did not go as planned and that Plaintiff should
wear a special sock and ankle brace until Plaintiff was released from prison
and able to get the ankle fixed properly. (Pl.’s Dep. pp. 7-8.) According
to Plaintiff, the brace and the special socks are needed to hold his ankle
bones properly in place and to reduce swelling. The brace that was issued
by the Cook County Jail after the surgery appears to be some sort of
Neoprene brace. (Pl.’s Resp. to Original Summary J. Mot., Ex. B, d/e 32,
p. 6.)
Plaintiff’s statement about what the surgeon said is inadmissible
hearsay. However, there is evidence that the surgery did not work as
hoped. Plaintiff filed a case in the Northern District of Illinois in 2004
regarding the denial of low gallery placement in an IDOC prison, attaching
Page 2 of 9
to his complaint a radiological report dated 7/19/12, which states that one
of the surgery screws had come loose and had “migrated medially over the
fibula.” Wimberly v. Johnson, et al., 04-4355 (N.D. Ill.)(exhibit to
Complaint, d/e 1.) Nothing has been done to correct this problem as far
as the Court can tell.
Plaintiff was transferred from Cook County Jail to the Illinois
Department of Corrections in May of 2002. According to Plaintiff, every
IDOC prison in which he resided allowed him to wear the sock and brace
until he arrived at Logan Correctional Center on August 6, 2008. At
Logan, a nurse purportedly confiscated the brace during Plaintiff’s initial
health screening and told Plaintiff that Plaintiff must obtain Dr. Obaisi’s
approval to keep the brace. Whether Plaintiff was still wearing his
therapeutic sock is not in the record. Plaintiff was given a low bunk
permit, but Dr. Obaisi avers that the low bunk permit was issued because
Plaintiff is obese. (Dr. Obaisi Aff. para. 12.)
According to Plaintiff, Plaintiff asked Dr. Obaisi for the ankle brace
during Dr. Obaisi’s first examination of Plaintiff in August 2008. Dr.
Page 3 of 9
Obaisi purportedly denied Plaintiff’s request, telling Plaintiff the brace was
unnecessary. (Pl.’s Dep. pp. 11-13). Plaintiff transferred out of Logan to
Big Muddy Correctional Center on October 9, 2010.
Dr. Obaisi avers that he did not deny Plaintiff the ankle brace or any
treatment for Plaintiff’s ankle. According to Dr. Obaisi, Plaintiff made no
complaints about his ankle, did not ask for a brace, and did not have the
brace when he came to Logan Correctional Center. Dr. Obaisi further
avers that, based on his medical judgment, Plaintiff had no medical need
for a brace, therapeutic socks, or any other treatment for his ankle. (Dr.
Obaisi Aff. paras. 13-21.)
At the summary judgment stage, the Court construes inferences in
the non-moving party’s favor. On this record, a juror could find that
Plaintiff had and has a serious medical need for some kind of treatment for
his ankle. The loose screw in Plaintiff’s ankle and Plaintiff’s description
of his pain and difficulty moving allow that inference.
The difficult question is whether a juror could find that Dr. Obaisi
knew about Plaintiff’s ankle condition. Plaintiff argues that his medical
Page 4 of 9
records clearly show his need for treatment for his ankle, including a brace,
but they do not. When Plaintiff was first transferred from Cook County
Jail to Stateville Correctional Center in 2002 for processing, Plaintiff’s
medical records show that Plaintiff had a brace and cane; his medical
history indicated that he had had ankle surgery and had an ankle plate and
screws in his right ankle. (Health status and reception screening form, d/e
21, p. 3.) However, medical records for the next four years from various
prisons note that Plaintiff was not receiving any treatment for his ankle nor
any assistive devices, and that Plaintiff was mobile. The medical records
are replete with treatment of Plaintiff’s hypertension, chest pain, H pylori
infection, kidney problems, and other health problems, but little or no
mention is made of Plaintiff’s ankle. There is no indication that Dr.
Obaisi saw or was aware of the 2002 x-ray showing the loose screws during
Plaintiff's incarceration in Logan Correctional Center, which began four
years later.
When Plaintiff arrived at Logan Correctional Center in August
2008, Plaintiff’s 2001 ankle surgery was noted as part of Plaintiff’s medical
Page 5 of 9
history, but no brace or other assistive device was mentioned. There is no
written record of Plaintiff complaining of ankle problems at Logan
Correctional Center until he filed a grievance on May 25, 2010, in which
Plaintiff stated that he had repeatedly asked Dr. Obaisi and the other
medical staff for “a brace, therapeutic socks, physical therapy, and pain
killers for my painful medical condition. My right ankle has a plate with 5
screws and the bone was not set.” (3/25/2010 grievance, d/e 48-4, p.
3)(misspellings corrected.) The grievance was denied for the stated
reasons that the medical records showed that Plaintiff had never sought
treatment for his ankle. In denying the grievance, officials told Plaintiff to
sign up for sick call if he needed treatment for his ankle. Id. Plaintiff
does not say what actions he took after his grievance was denied to try to
obtain treatment for his ankle.
In the Court’s opinion, what this case comes down to is Plaintiff’s
word that he repeatedly asked Dr. Obaisi for treatment for his ankle
against Dr. Obaisi’s word that Plaintiff never complained of any ankle
problems to Dr. Obaisi. As discussed above, the medical records on file
Page 6 of 9
support Dr. Obaisi’s version. Plaintiff is vague about the number of times
he asked for help with his ankle at Logan, who he asked, and how he asked.
To find Dr. Obaisi deliberately indifferent on this record, a juror would
arguably have to believe that Dr. Obaisi and all the other medical staff at
Logan knowingly failed to record Plaintiff’s purported requests for ankle
treatment in Plaintiff’s medical records.
On the other hand, Plaintiff argues that his ankle problem was so
obvious that even a layperson would recognize the need for treatment.
Plaintiff also argues that he did not seek care for his ankle in other prisons
because he was allowed to wear the brace. Plaintiff vigorously disputes
Dr. Obaisi’s averment that Plaintiff did not complain to Dr. Obaisi about
his ankle. Plaintiff argues that an inference arises that he did complain
from the obvious and severe nature of his injury.
The Court must credit Plaintiff’s testimony over Dr. Obaisi’s at this
stage. Resolving the case in favor of Dr. Obaisi would require the Court to
weigh conflicting evidence, which the Court is not permitted to do at the
summary judgment stage. Stokes v. Board of Educ. of the City of
Page 7 of 9
Chicago, 599 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2010)("In deciding a motion for
summary judgment, neither the district court nor this court may
assess the credibility of witnesses, choose between competing
reasonable inferences, or balance the relative weight of conflicting
evidence.") Summary judgment must, therefore, be denied to Dr.
Obaisi.
As for Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Plaintiff has no
evidence that his lack of treatment is attributable to a policy or
practice of Wexford. Jackson v. Ill. Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760,
766 n. 6 (7th Cir. 2002)(private corporations acting under color of
state law are treated as municipal entities for purposes of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983; Billings v. Madison Metropolitan School Dist., 259
F.3d 807, 816 (7th Cir. 2001)(municipality liable under § 1983 only if
municipality had unconstitutional practice or policy which caused
deprivation). However, whether Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief is not
clear. Plaintiff does not name his current treating doctors, but he
does assert that the medical staff at his current prison refuse to treat
his ankle because of this ongoing case. If Plaintiff does seek
injunctive relief, Wexford may be a necessary Defendant, in order to
Page 8 of 9
avoid Plaintiff having to start over every time he is transferred.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Defendants’ supplemental summary judgment motion is
denied
(d/e 48).
2) A status conference is set for February 24, 2014 at 9:30
a.m.
Plaintiff shall appear by video conference. Defense counsel
shall appear in person.
ENTERED: February 4, 2014
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 9 of 9
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?