Lippert v. Ghosh et al

Filing 344

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. The Court denies Norman, Maldonado, and Rossiter's motions for summary judgment on Count II 277 & 281 . Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 6/16/2015. Notice mailed by judge's staff (ntf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DON LIPPERT, CARL MICHAELS,
MICHAEL CLARK, WILLIAM EARL
BASSETT, OZELL GRAYER, LEWIS
RICE, and MILAM MARTIN,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SALVADOR GODINEZ, LOUIS
)
SHICKER, PATRICK QUINN,
)
ALPHONSO NORMAN, MARTHA
)
MALDONADO, ATHENA ROSSITER, )
and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, )
INC.,
)
Defendants.
)

10 C 4603

Judge Jorge L. Alonso

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In Count II of the third amended complaint, plaintiff Lippert alleges that defendants
Alphonso Norman, Martha Maldonado, and Athena Rossiter were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical need. Norman, Maldonado, and Rossiter have filed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56 motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motions.

Facts
In May 2010, plaintiff Lippert was an inmate in and defendants Maldonado and Norman
were correctional officers working at the Illinois Department of Corrections’ (“IDOC’s”) Stateville
facility. (Jt. Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 1, 3-4.) Defendant Rossiter was a licensed practical nurse who worked
for Wexford Health Sources, Inc., which provides medical care to Stateville inmates. (Id. ¶ 2.)

Lippert has Type I Diabetes and, in May 2010, he received two shots of insulin daily, one
in the morning and one in the afternoon/evening, to regulate his blood sugar. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 11.) The
insulin was administered by a nurse or a medical technician. (Id. ¶ 11.)
On the morning of May 1, 2010, a non-party medical technician refused to give Lippert his
morning insulin shot. (Id. ¶ 14.) Later that morning, Lippert complained to defendant Norman
about the missing shot. (Id. ¶ 16.) Lippert testified that Norman responded by “laughing, ignoring
me, waving me off.” (Id.) Norman does not recall any such incident. (Id. ¶ 17.)
Lippert says that he also complained to defendant Maldonado and asked her to take him to
get his insulin. (Id. ¶ 18.) In response, Lippert testified, Maldonado “said nothing, did not look at
him and just kept on with her duties.” (Id.) Maldonado, on the other hand, testified that she went
downstairs to tell her sergeant that Lippert had not received his shot, heard her sergeant tell the
health care unit that Lippert needed a shot, and then went back upstairs to Lippert’s gallery to
resume her duties. (Id. ¶ 20.)
When Maldonado returned to Lippert’s gallery and passed his cell, he told her that he was
dizzy and was going to pass out. (Id. ¶ 21.) After she had passed his cell, she heard a thump and
laughter. (Id.) She turned back toward Lippert’s cell and saw him lying on his side on the floor with
his eyes open. (Id.) Given Lippert’s alertness and laughter, Maldonado says she did not think that
he was having a medical emergency. (Id.)
At some point thereafter, Lippert heard Norman call for the sergeant to come up to Lippert’s
cell because Lippert was on the ground. (Id. ¶ 23.) Lippert was then taken to the health care unit.
(Id.)

2

At noon, Dr. Zhang ordered insulin for Lippert, which brought his blood sugar under control.
(Id. ¶ 27.) At 2:50 p.m., Dr. Zhang noted that Lippert’s blood sugar was at a “very steady level of
125,” and ordered that he be discharged after his afternoon/evening insulin shot and meal. (Id. ¶ 29.)
At 4:30 p.m., non-party Nurse Breske noted that Lippert’s blood sugar was 115 and told him
that because his blood sugar was stable, he was not going to get more insulin at that time. (Id. ¶¶
32-33.)
On his way out of the health care unit, Lippert saw defendant Rossiter, who was packaging
medication for distribution, and told her he needed his insulin shot. (Id. ¶ 36.) Lippert says that,
on instructions from Breske, Rossiter told Lippert he did not need another shot. (Id. ¶ 37.) Rossiter
does not recall any such interaction. (Id. ¶ 38.)
At 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., when Rossiter was passing out medication on his gallery, Lippert told
her he felt weak and dizzy and needed his insulin shot. (Id. ¶ 40.) Lippert says she told him she
would come back to test his blood sugar after passing out the medication, but she did not return.
(Id.) Rossiter does not recall this incident. (Id. ¶ 41.)
Sometime between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., someone named Gary tested Lippert’s blood
sugar and gave him an insulin shot. (Id. ¶¶ 43-44.) “Lippert testified that he felt fine after Gary
gave him his insulin that evening, but continued to have muscle tightness and headaches for a few
days thereafter . . . .” (Id. ¶ 45.)

Discussion
To prevail on a summary judgment motion, “the movant [must] show[] that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). At this stage, we do not weigh evidence or determine the truth of the matters
asserted. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). We view all evidence and
draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Michas v. Health Cost Controls of Ill., Inc.,
209 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record as a
whole establishes that no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party. Id.
In Count II of the third amended complaint, Lippert alleges that Norman, Maldonado, and
Rossiter violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care. To defeat defendants’
motions, plaintiff must offer evidence that suggests they were deliberately indifferent to his
objectively serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). “An objectively
serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one
that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s
attention.” Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (quotations omitted).
A defendant acted with deliberate indifference if “[he] was subjectively aware of the prisoner’s
serious medical needs and disregarded an excessive risk that a lack of treatment posed to the
prisoner’s health or safety.” Id.
Defendants do not dispute that Type I Diabetes is an objectively serious medical condition,
but they contend that the record does not suggest that they were deliberately indifferent. The Court
disagrees. Viewed favorably to Lippert, the record suggests that all three defendants knew he was
an insulin-dependent diabetic but ignored his requests for his insulin, even, in the case of
Maldonado, after seeing Lippert lying on the floor of his cell. This evidence is sufficient to support
the inference that defendants Norman, Maldonado, and Rossiter were deliberately indifferent to
Lippert’s serious medical need.

4

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Norman, Maldonado, and Rossiter’s
motions for summary judgment on Count II [277 & 281].
SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 16, 2015

__________________________________
HON. JORGE ALONSO
United States District Judge

5