Gibson v. Obaisi et al

Filing 132

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order written by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 5/30/2019: For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 125] and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. Mailed notice. (pjg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
LARRY GIBSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GHALIAH OBAISI, independent executor
of the estate of DR. SALEH OBAISI,
DR. ANN HUNDLEY-DAVIS, LATONYA
WILLIAMS, and WEXFORD HEALTH
SOURCES, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 6358

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:
Larry Gibson, a former inmate at Stateville Correctional Center, has sued
members of the prison's medical staff and the corporation providing healthcare services
to the prison under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Eighth Amendment rights. Gibson
alleges that Stateville's former medical director, Dr. Saleh Obaisi, 1 other members of the
medical staff—physician assistant Latonya Williams and Dr. Ann Hundley-Davis 2—and
their employer, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., disregarded his complaints of severe pain
related to a fall he suffered during his incarceration. He contends that their disregard
amounted to deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition. The defendants

Dr. Obaisi passed away in 2017, and the administrator of his estate has been
substituted in his place as a defendant.
2 The parties are inconsistent in whether they refer to this defendant as Dr. Davis or Dr.
Hundley-Davis. The Court adopts Dr. Davis's lawyers' approach.
1

have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons below, the Court grants the
motion.
Background
A.

Factual background
The following facts are undisputed except where otherwise noted. Larry Gibson

was an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center from May 2006 until April 2016. During
that time, he experienced a number of health problems, including issues resulting from
a fall he suffered after slipping on ice in January 2013. Although the defendants' motion
for summary judgment and filing under Local Rule 56.1 combined the claims underlying
this case with those underlying another suit filed by the same plaintiff, Gibson v. Obaisi,
No. 14 C 8043 (N.D. Ill.), the following account is limited to facts relevant to the abovecaptioned matter.
Gibson was injured when he slipped and fell on the ice while walking to the
Stateville library on January 31, 2013. Dr. Obaisi examined Gibson later the same day.
Gibson complained of an abrasion to his right knee and reported that he had hit his
head and momentarily lost consciousness. Dr. Obaisi assessed both injuries and
prescribed Tylenol. Four days later, on February 4, Gibson saw physician assistant
Williams for an unrelated issue—his chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
Williams recorded in her notes that Gibson had no new fall-related complaints since the
January 31 visit. Gibson saw Williams again on March 4 for GERD symptoms and neck
and left shoulder pain. Williams changed Gibson's GERD medication and ordered him
ice and an analgesic balm. She also referred Gibson for an x-ray of his shoulder and
spine. The x-ray indicated that there was a reverse curve in Gibson's spine, which later

2

testing confirmed was temporary and due to a muscle spasm. There was no dislocation
or fracture of his shoulder.
Over the following three years, Gibson repeatedly presented to medical
personnel with neck, back, and shoulder pain, including after he was involved in a fight
with his cellmate in February 2014. He was treated with non-steroidal pain relievers,
nerve pain medication, and, on a couple of occasions, steroid injections to relieve
inflammation. He also received an abdominal binder. Gibson repeatedly filed
grievances related to the care he was receiving for his back, shoulder, and arm pain. In
the course of this ongoing treatment, Gibson received more x-rays and was diagnosed
with osteoarthritis—an incurable, progressive, and degenerative condition—as well as
disc degeneration in his back.
In April 2016, Gibson was transferred to Hill Correctional Center. After he arrived
at Hill, Gibson received yet more x-rays that confirmed severe osteoarthritic
degradation.
B.

Procedural history
Gibson filed the original pro se complaint in July 2015, along with a motion for

appointment of counsel. The judge to whom the case was previously assigned granted
the motion, but the original attorney eventually withdrew from the representation, as did
the four other attorneys subsequently appointed to represent Gibson—the latest at
Gibson's request. Since February 2018, he has again proceeded pro se. Despite
receiving notice, see dkt. no. 128, Gibson did not file any response to the defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

3

Two counts from the first amended complaint remain. 3 In count 1 Gibson
alleges, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the individual defendants were deliberately
indifferent to Gibson's objectively serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. In count 3 he alleges that the individual defendants' employer, Wexford,
was also deliberately indifferent under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the
City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The defendants have moved for summary
judgment on both counts.
Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute of material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
Martinsville Corral, Inc. v. Soc'y Ins., 910 F.3d 996, 998 (7th Cir. 2018). The Court
views the evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See
Cervantes v. Ardagh Grp., 914 F.3d 560, 564 (7th Cir. 2019). To survive summary
judgment, Gibson must "present specific facts establishing a material issue for trial, and
any inferences must rely on more than mere speculation or conjecture." Giles v.
Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1048 (7th Cir. 2019). Because he failed to file a response, the
Court reviews the record to determine whether there is any basis upon which to deny
the motion for summary judgment.
Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishments if they are deliberately indifferent to an inmate's serious medical needs.
Id. at 1048-49 (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). To prevail on this

Gibson withdrew count 2, which unnecessarily asserted as a separate claim a request
for injunctive relief. See dkt. no. 76. The Court dismissed count 4, which asserted a
claim for respondeat superior liability against Wexford, for failure to state a claim. Id.
3

4

claim, Gibson must show "that he suffered from (1) an objectively serious medical
condition to which (2) a state official was deliberately, that is subjectively, indifferent."
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Gibson must also show that the official's
deliberate indifference caused him to suffer some injury. See Gayton v. McCoy, 593
F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir. 2010).
The defendants contend that there is not evidence from which a reasonable jury
could find in Gibson's favor on the issue of causation. The defendants rely on expert
testimony from Dr. Jeffrey Grosskopf, an orthopedist, who opined in his report and
deposition testimony that all of Gibson's symptoms are attributable to his severe,
incurable osteoarthritis. Indeed, Dr. Grosskopf concluded that Gibson's worsening
back, neck, shoulder, and wrist pain were not the product of his January 2013 fall but
rather the result of his chronic condition progressing. The appropriate care, in Dr.
Grosskopf's view, was the sort of conservative pain relief regime undertaken by the
Stateville medical staff.
The Court can find no evidence that Gibson's fall rather than his chronic
osteoarthritis caused the conditions of which he complains. It is not the case, as the
defendants seem to suggest, that a plaintiff in Gibson's position is required to present
testimony from a medical expert to survive summary judgment. See Williams v. Liefer,
491 F.3d 710, 715 (7th Cir. 2007). But there must be some admissible evidence that
supports an inference of causation; the plaintiff cannot rely exclusively on conclusory
assertions. Giles, 914 F.3d at 1048. Because Gibson has not pointed to (and the Court
cannot find) evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants'
alleged failure to treat him appropriately after his January 2013 fall caused or worsened

5

the health conditions underlying this case, the defendants are entitled to summary
judgment.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the defendants' motion for summary
judgment [dkt. no. 125] and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendants
and against plaintiff.

________________________________
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY
United States District Judge
Date: May 30, 2019

6