Jenkins et al v. Schaefer et al
Filing
111
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 10/7/2013: For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to plaintiff's claims against defendants, who are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court grants defendants' motions for summary judgment [83 & 94] and terminates this case. Mailed notice (cjg, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MARCUS JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,
INC., RONALD SCHAEFER, M.D.
and SHANAL BARNETT,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 12 C 3836
Judge Ronald A. Guzmán
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff sues defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their alleged violations of his
Eighth Amendment rights. Defendants have filed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56
motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motions.
Facts
At all relevant times, plaintiff was an inmate at the Illinois Department of Corrections’
Stateville facility, defendant Wexford was the medical service provider for Stateville, defendant
Schaefer was a physician at Stateville and defendant Barnett was a medical technician at
Stateville. (Pl.’s Resp. Wexford & Schaefer’s LR 56.1(a) Stmt. ¶¶ 2-4, 6.) While at Stateville,
plaintiff went to its asthma clinic every four months, where he was examined by a doctor and
given prescriptions for: (1) a Qvar inhaler, which was to be used twice a day to prevent an
asthma attack; and (2) an Albuterol inhaler, which was to be used four times a day as needed to
alleviate an asthma attack. (Wexford & Schaefer’s LR 56.1(a) Stmt., Ex. E, Pl.’s Dep. at 11-12,
25-26; id., Ex. B, Pl.’s Med. Records at 00027-28, 00032-33.)
Defendant Schaefer examined plaintiff at Stateville’s September 21, 2010 and February
16, 2011 asthma clinics, noted both times that plaintiff had “good control” of his asthma and
refilled plaintiff’s prescriptions. (Id., Ex. B, Pl.’s Med. Records at 00027-28, 00032-33; id., Ex.
A, Schaefer Dep. at 29-38; Pl.’s Resp. Wexford & Schaefer’s LR 56.1(a) ¶¶ 14, 16.)
Though each Albuterol inhaler should last about six months, plaintiff says the inhaler he
received after the February 16, 2011 clinic was nearly empty by the end of April 2011 and
completely empty by May 4, 2011.
(See Wexford & Schaefer’s LR 56.1(a) Stmt., Ex. A,
Schaefer Dep. at 60-61; Pl.’s LR 56.1 Stmt., Ex. A, Pro Se Compl., Ex. 1, Letter from Pl. to
Schaeffer [sic] (Apr. 27, 2011); id., Ex. 2 Letter from Pl. to Schaeffer [sic] (May 4, 2011).)
Consequently, between late April and May 9, 2011, plaintiff says he made a written refill request
through the prison’s established process, asked Barnett for a refill and sent three letters
requesting refills to Schaefer. (Wexford & Schaefer’s LR 56.1(a) Stmt., Ex. E, Pl.’s Dep. at 5657; Pl.’s LR 56.1 Stmt., Ex. A, Pro Se Complaint, Ex. 2, Letter from Pl. to Schaeffer [sic] (May
4, 2011); id., Ex. 4, Letter from Pl. to Schaeffer [sic] (May 9, 2011).) Schaefer says he rarely
sees letters from inmates, and in any event, did not see the letters from plaintiff. (Wexford &
Schaefer’s LR 56.1(a) Stmt., Ex. A, Schaefer Dep. at 20-24.) Barnett has no recollection of
plaintiff asking her for a refill, but says it is her practice to note such requests in an inmate’s
medical file. (Pl.’s Resp. Barnett’s LR 56.1(a) Stmt. ¶¶ 5-15.) Plaintiff’s medical records do not
reflect that he requested a refill from Barnett or anyone else between February 16, 2011 and May
10, 2011. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17; see Wexford & Schaefer’s LR 56.1(a) Stmt., Ex. D, Shute Dep. at 4143; see generally id., Ex. B, Pl.’s Med. Records.)
-2-
In March and April 2011, Wexford launched an asthma initiative to educate patients
about the causes and treatment of the condition and “to identify patients whose asthma may not
be in control.”
(See Wexford & Schaefer’s LR 56.1(a) Stmt., Ex. G, 2011 Asthma Care
Initiative at 2 (Apr. 11, 2011); see also id., Asthma Care Initiative: Asthma Training Tool (Mar.
4, 2011); id., Asthma Care Initiative: Focus on Education (Mar. 4, 2011); id., Asthma Care
Initiative: Focus on Control (Mar. 29, 2011).) The initiative documents state that airway
inflammation should be treated with regular use of a “maintenance” inhaler like Qvar and airway
constriction should be treated with a “rescue” inhaler like Albuterol.
(Id., Asthma Care
Initiative: Asthma Training Tool at 2 (Mar. 4, 2011); id., 2011 Asthma Care Initiative at 2-3
(Apr. 11, 2011).) They also state that “increasing use of [an Albuterol inhaler] or [use of
Albuterol] more than two days a week for symptom relief . . . generally indicates inadequate
control of asthma and the need for initiating or intensifying anti-inflammatory therapy.” (Id.,
Asthma Care Initiative: Focus on Control at 2 (Mar. 29, 2011).) Accordingly, the policy directs
doctors and pharmacists to “dispens[e] . . . one [Albuterol] inhaler every 180 days” (id., 2011
Asthma Care Initiative at 2 (Apr. 11, 2011)), and to write on each inhaler: “1-2 puffs only when
needed[.] [R]epeat in 4-6 hours if needed[.] (If no relief please go to [Health Care Unit.])”
(Id., 2011 Asthma Care Initiative: Focus on Control at 2 (Mar. 29, 2011)) (emphasis original).
Moreover, it states:
If a patient presents with an empty [Albuterol] canister prior to the authorized
refill date . . . . [t]he patient should be evaluated by a clinician, and improved
asthma control should be sought. If a clinician is not available[,] the patient
should be held and observed until he/she can be evaluated.
This is not to be interpreted as a limit on [Albuterol] inhalers for patients. If
it is determined that a patient needs an inhaler after evaluation, please order
one and have it dispensed. . . .
-3-
(Id. at 2-3) (emphasis original).
On May 10, 2011, plaintiff was admitted to the infirmary, complaining of chest tightness
and shortness of breath. (Pl.’s LR 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 21-22; Wexford & Schaefer’s LR 56.1(a) Stmt.,
Ex. B, Pl.’s Med. Records at 00035-38.) He was given a breathing treatment, oral steroids, an
Albuterol refill, and held overnight for observation. (Wexford & Schaefer’s LR 56.1(a) Stmt.,
Ex. B, Pl.’s Med. Records at 00035-38.) There is no dispute that this was an appropriate course
of treatment. (Id., Ex. A, Schaefer Dep. at 51-52.)
On May 11, 2011, Dr. Shute examined plaintiff and noted that plaintiff’s lungs were clear
and he was relaxed. (Id., Ex. D, Shute Dep. at 28-30, 33-34.) Shortly thereafter, plaintiff was
discharged from the infirmary.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by refusing to
refill his Albuterol inhaler and by limiting, for financial reasons, inmates’ access to such
inhalers. (See First Am. Compl. ¶ 4.)
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.”
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
-4-
when the record as a whole establishes that no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving
party. Id.
Failing to provide medical treatment to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment only if
it constitutes deliberate indifference to an 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) (quotations omitted). A defendant acted with deliberate indifference if “[he] was
subjectively aware of the prisoner’s serious medical need[] and disregarded an excessive risk
that a lack of treatment posed to the prisoner’s health or safety from lack of treatment.” Id.
The parties dispute whether the record suggests that plaintiff’s asthma is a serious
medical condition. The Court need not decide that issue, however, because there is no triable
issue of fact as to deliberate indifference. Viewed favorably to plaintiff, the record does not
suggest that Schaefer even knew about, let alone deliberately ignored, plaintiff’s requests for an
Albuterol refill. With respect to Barnett, it suggests – at most – that she may have been
negligent in addressing a single refill request plaintiff made to her verbally. In short, no
reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the record that Schaefer or Barnett acted with
deliberate indifference. Thus, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s
claims.
The same is true for Wexford, which can only be held liable under § 1983 if one of its
policies caused the alleged constitutional violation. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of City
of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 622 (7th Cir. 2010). In his
-5-
complaint, plaintiff alleges that Shute told him Wexford had changed its policy on distributing
Albuterol inhalers to save money. (See Pro Se Compl. ¶ 21; First Am. Compl. ¶ 4(b).) Shute
denies making the statement, and Wexford’s asthma policy says nothing about costs. (See
Wexford & Schaefer’s LR 56.1(a) Stmt., Ex. D, Shute Dep. at 45-47, 51-53; see generally id.,
Ex. G, 2011 Asthma Care Initiative (Apr. 11, 2011); id., Asthma Care Initiative: Asthma
Training Tool (Mar. 4, 2011); id., Asthma Care Initiative: Focus on Education (Mar. 4, 2011);
id., Asthma Care Initiative: Focus on Control (Mar. 29, 2011).) More importantly, and despite
what he alleged in the complaint, plaintiff testified as follows:
A.
. . . [Dr. Shute] told me that Dr. Schaeffer [sic] should have responded to
my requests and that I didn’t receive the inhaler because Wexford had
changed their policy on distributing asthma inhalers.
Q.
Is that everything you recall Dr. Shute telling you?
A.
Yes.
(Id., Ex. E, Pl.’s Dep. at 34.) Because there is no evidence that suggests Wexford had a policy of
denying inmates Albuterol inhalers to save money, it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
on plaintiff’s claims.
-6-
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material
fact as to plaintiff’s claims against defendants, who are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the Court grants defendants’ motions for summary judgment [83 & 94] and
terminates this case.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: October 7, 2013
__________________________________
HON. RONALD A. GUZMAN
United States District Judge
-7-
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?