English v. Staci et al
Filing
35
OPINION granting d/e 29 Motion for Summary Judgment entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 1/31/2014. Dr. Obaisi's motion for summary judgment is granted, d/e 29 . Judgment to be entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff. This case is terminated with the parties to bear their own costs. If the Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). If the Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $455.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 31 January, 2014 09:02:00 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
LAFAYETTE ENGLISH,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. OBAISI,
Defendant.1
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 12-CV-3293
OPINION GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his incarceration in Lincoln
Correctional Center. Plaintiff’s remaining claim is an Eighth
Amendment claim against Defendant Dr. Obaisi for alleged
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs arising
from an injury Plaintiff suffered in an accident at Logan
Correctional Center.
Dr. Obaisi moves for summary judgment. After reviewing the
parties’ submissions, the Court concludes that Dr. Obaisi's motion
must be granted. Plaintiff has no evidence that Dr. Obaisi’s
treatment approach, consisting essentially of rest and pain
1
Defendant "Staci" was dismissed on July 18, 2013, because Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies
against Staci.
Page 1 of 11
medicine, amounted to deliberate indifference. In fact, the record
shows that Plaintiff recovered fully from his injuries under that
conservative approach.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
“In a § 1983 case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on
the constitutional deprivation that underlies the claim, and thus
must come forward with sufficient evidence to create genuine issues
of material fact to avoid summary judgment.” McAllister v. Price,
615 F.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2010). At the summary judgment
stage, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant, with material factual disputes resolved in the
nonmovant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
248 (1986). A genuine dispute of material fact exists when a
reasonable juror could find for the nonmovant. Id.
FACTS
On November 29, 2010, Plaintiff was riding with another
inmate in the flatbed of a John Deere “Gator,” an all-terrain, openair work vehicle, on their way to repair a gate at the Logan
Correctional Center. The Gator had two seats in the front and a
flatbed in the back which lifts up for dumping. (Pl.’s Dep. pp. 62Page 2 of 11
63.) Plaintiff and another inmate were riding in the back with their
legs hanging over the end because the two front seats were already
occupied by Plaintiff's supervisor and an inmate. Plaintiff was
typically transported to his job on the grounds at the prison, even
though the Gator was not designed to safely carry people in the
flatbed and bore a warning label specifically advising against such
transport.
On November 29, 2010, Plaintiff’s supervisor was driving the
Gator more quickly than usual because the tools needed to fix the
gate had been left behind. (Pl.’s Dep. p. 34.) The Gator hit a bump,
which catapulted Plaintiff and the other inmate riding in the back
into the air. Plaintiff landed on his right buttock and lower back,
and he believes he lost consciousness for a second or two. (Pl.’s
Dep. 38-40.) Plaintiff lay still until an ambulance came with a
stretcher and took him to the hospital, where he received a CT of
his cervical spine and head and x-rays of his right hip and lumbar
spine. (Dr. Obaisi’s Aff. ¶ 4.)
The x-rays and CTs showed no “acute abnormalities,” only
mild degenerative changes attributable to normal aging—Plaintiff
was 44 years old when the accident occurred. (Radiology Reports
Page 3 of 11
dated 11/29/10, d/e 30-3, pp. 29-32; Dr. Obaisi’s Aff. ¶¶ 5-14.)
The lumbar spine x-ray showed that “L5 is sacralized bilaterally,”
which, according to Dr. Obaisi, “is a congenital condition where the
L5 vertebral body is incorporated into the S1 vertebral body, where
normally they are separated by a disc. This condition can cause
low back stiffness and chronic law back pain.” (Dr. Obaisi Aff. ¶ 6;
lumbar spine x-ray, d/e 30-3, p. 29.)
Plaintiff was returned to Logan Correctional Center from the
hospital that same day, where Plaintiff saw Dr. Obaisi. After
reviewing the hospital tests and examining Plaintiff, Dr. Obaisi
diagnosed Plaintiff with an acute sprain of the right hip and low
back. Dr. Obaisi prescribed Motrin, gave Plaintiff a five day “lay-in”
from work, and a low bunk permit for one month. Dr. Obaisi also
scheduled a follow-up in three days. (Dr. Obaisi Aff. ¶ 7.)
The next day, Plaintiff saw Dr. Obaisi for complaints of back
pain—Plaintiff had not yet received his Motrin—and also for
complaints of blood in Plaintiff’s stool. Dr. Obaisi diagnosed
internal hemorrhoids and gave Plaintiff a fecal occult blood test,
which was negative. Dr. Obaisi also prescribed Plaintiff Atenolol for
Page 4 of 11
Plaintiff’s headaches2 and Zantac. (Dr. Obaisi Aff. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff
believes that the bleeding was caused by the accident because
Plaintiff had not had blood in his stool before the accident.
However, Plaintiff does not dispute Dr. Obaisi’s conclusion that
Plaintiff's bleeding was attributable to internal hemorrhoids. Over
the following months, Plaintiff continued to have occasional
bleeding if he strained on the toilet, but eventually the hemorrhoids
resolved on their own. (Pl.’s Dep. Pp. 45-46.)
Over the two months following the accident, Plaintiff continued
to report soreness in his low back and right buttocks where he had
fallen, as well as occasional numbness in his leg and foot. Dr.
Obaisi examined Plaintiff about every two weeks in December and
January: on December 2, 10, and 27, 2010, and on January 11
and 26, 2011. (Dr. Obaisi Aff. ¶¶ 40-60.) Plaintiff does not dispute
that during this time he had full range of motion without
tenderness to touch. Plaintiff also does not dispute that at the
January 26th visit he described his back as slowly improving. (Dr.
Obaisi Aff. ¶ 58.) Dr. Obaisi continued with the conservative
treatment, prescribing rest, pain medicine, and some stretching
2
Atenolol is generally prescribed for high blood pressure but is sometimes prescribed for migraine headaches,
www.nlm.gov (search for Atenolol).
Page 5 of 11
exercises. Plaintiff asked for an MRI, but Dr. Obaisi did not believe
any further testing was indicated. (Dr. Obaisi Aff. ¶ 99; Pl.’s Dep. p.
46.)
Plaintiff saw Dr. Obaisi on March 14, 2011, this time reporting
that his back pain was mild, with an occasional tingling in his leg.
(Dr. Obaisi’s Aff. ¶ 65.) Plaintiff’s movements were within the
normal range, as was a straight leg elevation test, which tests for
pinched nerves. (Dr. Obaisi’s Aff. ¶¶ 65-72.) Dr. Obaisi prescribed
Motrin and ordered a blood test to check kidney function in light of
Plaintiff’s extended use of Motrin.
Dr. Obaisi next saw Plaintiff on May 12, 2011, for a follow-up
appointment. At that time Plaintiff reported only occasional low
back pain which responded well to Motrin. Plaintiff had also
started working in the prison kitchen by that time.
A few months later, though, the pain returned. At the end of
August, 2011, Plaintiff saw a nurse practitioner for complaints of
low back pain and received a higher dose of Motrin. Plaintiff later
received a handout with exercises for low back pain and saw Dr.
Obaisi on December 29, 2011, for complaints of chronic low back
pain. Dr. Obaisi prescribed Meloxicam/Mobic and Naproxen, but
Page 6 of 11
that did not help Plaintiff’s pain. Plaintiff saw Dr. Obaisi the next
month to report that the new medicines had not worked,
whereupon Dr. Obaisi prescribed the Motrin again. (Dr. Obaisi Aff.
¶¶ 17-21.) The last time Dr. Obaisi saw Plaintiff was on May 12,
2012, when Dr. Obaisi renewed Plaintiff’s prescription for 800 mg of
Motrin, twice per day, for four months. Id. at ¶¶ 21, 22.
Plaintiff transferred to Sheridan Correctional Center in August
2012. He has not experienced any numbness in his foot and leg
since then, and, as of the date of his deposition in June 2013,
Plaintiff no longer needed pain medicine for his back. (Pl.’s Dep. P.
59.). As of the date of Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff was working
five days a week in the kitchen, standing and washing dishes for
over five hours at a time. (Pl.’s Dep. pp. 13-15.)
Dr. Obaisi avers “[i]t is not surprising or indicative of any
underlying problem beyond the diagnosed sprain that Mr. English
continued to experience pain as a result of his fall. Due to Mr.
English being in his mid-forties and already showing osteoarthritis
in his joints, the healing of the tendons, muscles, bones, and nerves
from his back and hip sprain are expected to be slower than in a
younger individual without arthritis.” (Dr. Obaisi Aff. ¶ 15.)
Page 7 of 11
ANALYSIS
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual
punishment, which in the context of this case prohibits deliberate
indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Gomez v.
Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012). Dr. Obaisi does not
dispute that Plaintiff’s back pain was a serious medical need. The
question then is whether a rational juror could find that Dr. Obaisi
was deliberately indifferent to that need.
A defendant acts with deliberate indifference when he
consciously disregards a known and substantial risk of serious
harm to an inmate. Rice ex rel. Rice v. Correctional Medical Serv.,
675 F.3d 650, 665 (7th Cir. 2012)("An official is deliberately
indifferent when he is subjectively aware of the condition or danger
complained of, but consciously disregards it."). Serious harm
includes prolonged, significant and unnecessary pain. Smith v.
Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012)((“deliberate
indifference to prolonged, unnecessary pain can itself be the basis
for an Eighth Amendment claim”). Additionally, deliberate
indifference may be inferred if a physician’s decisions are “a
Page 8 of 11
substantial departure from accepted professional medical
judgment.” Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 857 (7th Cir. 2011)(quoting
Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 894-95 (7th Cir. 2009).
A juror could not find on this record that Dr. Obaisi was
deliberately indifferent to any of Plaintiff’s medical problems or
pain. Plaintiff has no evidence that Dr. Obaisi’s conservative
treatment was outside the ordinary standard of care, much less a
substantial departure therefrom. In fact, Plaintiff has fully
recovered, which supports Dr. Obaisi’s treatment approach. And,
Plaintiff does not dispute that Dr. Obaisi was responsive to
Plaintiff’s complaints of pain, regularly prescribing pain medicine, a
low bunk, exercises, and excuses from work. See Ray v. Wexford
Health Sources, Inc., 706 F.3d 864, 866 (7th Cir. 2013)(refusal to
give an inmate an MRI was not deliberately indifferent where doctor
did not believe the test would help in treatment—inmate was given
frequent exams, x-rays, painkillers, and a lower bunk).
Plaintiff’s primary problem with Dr. Obaisi appears to be what
Plaintiff described as Dr. Obaisi’s dismissive and callous attitude.
(Pl.’s Dep. p. 52)(“Dr. Obaisi, it’s like with him, when I was going
over there, his –he—it wasn’t as if he was really concerned about
Page 9 of 11
my health.”) However, that alone does not rise to a constitutional
violation. A callous attitude may be evidence in support of
deliberate indifference but only in conjunction with a treatment
approach that is substantially outside accepted norms.
Plaintiff also focuses on the fact that he never would have
been injured if his supervisor had not required Plaintiff to ride
unsecured in the Gator’s flatbed. That may be, but Plaintiff’s claim
against the supervisor was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies against the supervisor.
(7/18/13 order.) In any event, the supervisor was at most
negligent, and negligence does not violate the Constitution. Gomez
v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 864 (7th Cir. 2012)(“[A] § 1983 plaintiff
must establish that prison officials acted wantonly; negligence or
gross negligence is not enough.”). Plaintiff himself did not believe
that riding in the back of the Gator was dangerous until after the
accident. (Pl.’s Dep. p. 67).3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
3
Q. Did you ever complain about sitting in the back, having to sit in the back?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever feel it was dangerous to sit in the back before that day?
A. No. (Pl.'s Dep. p. 67.)
Page 10 of 11
1) Dr. Obaisi’s motion for summary judgment is granted (d/e
29). The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in
favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. All pending motions
are denied as moot, and this case is terminated, with the
parties to bear their own costs. All deadlines and settings on
the Court’s calendar are vacated.
2) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a
notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of
judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for leave to appeal
in forma pauperis should identify the issues Plaintiff will
present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c). If Plaintiff
does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $455.00
appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal.
ENTER:
January 31, 2014
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 11 of 11
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?