Love v. Dart et al
Filing
271
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 1/28/2025. Mailed notice. (mgh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Lewis Love
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
Sheriff of Cook County Thomas
Dart, in his official
capacity, et al.
Defendants.
No. 19 C 2762
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Lewis Love was in pre-trial custody at Cook County
Jail on January 7th, 2019, when he slipped and fell on the floor
of
the
jail’s
bathroom,
which
he
alleges
was
greasy
due
to
inadequate cleaning and maintenance. He claims to have injured his
back, head, and elbows in the fall, and he filed this action to
recover from two entities--Cook County and Wexford Health Sources,
Inc.,
a
private
individuals
in
entity
that
Illinois
state
provides
healthcare
custody--and
services
several
of
to
their
individual employees,1 claiming that they failed adequately to
The individual County defendants named in the operative complaint
are J. Alanis, M. Perry, Carl B. Berry, Steven M. Zaremba, Gina J.
Chung, Daniel J. Kaczrowski, Umeadi P. Imanlihen-Iyare, Kim M.
Anderson, Linda Miller, Darnice Wiggins, and Anthony Sevening. The
individual Wexford employees, who did not move to dismiss the
operative complaint, are Osmundson, Brittany Miller, and Orkies.
1
treat his injuries in the days, weeks, and months that followed
his fall.
Judge Lee, before whom this case was previously pending,
determined that Mr. Love’s claims against Cook County and Wexford
were incurably defective, and he dismissed them without leave to
replead.2 Love v. Dart, No. 19 C 2762, 2022 WL 797051, at *6 (N.D.
Ill. Mar. 16, 2022). Judge Lee similarly dismissed most of Mr.
Love’s individual claims against the County’s employees, leaving
only his claims for failure to provide medical attention under
§ 1983 against nurse Kim Anderson and nurse Linda Miller. See id.
at
*3-*5,
*7-*8.
Each
of
these
defendants,
as
well
as
the
individual defendants employed by Wexford—Dr. Kurt Osmundson and
nurses Jason Orkies and Brittany Miller—who treated Mr. Love during
his custody at the Illinois River Correctional Center (“IRCC”)
have filed motions for summary judgment on all claims asserted
against them in the Sixth Amended Complaint. For the reasons below,
their motions are granted.
I.
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
Mr. Love was in custody at the Cook County Jail from December 20,
By that point, Judge Lee had afforded Mr. Love several
opportunities to cure pleading deficiencies, and his order
dismissing portions of Mr. Love’s counseled, Fifth Amended
Complaint stated that any sixth amended complaint would be his
“final chance to file an amended complaint.” ECF 120 at 25.
2
2
2019, until March 18, 2019, when he was transferred into the
custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). He was
then housed at IRCC from April to October of 2019. Prior to his
custody at these facilities, Mr. Love had a history of back pain,
and indeed, he had back surgery in 2014 to address chronic back
pain after a work injury. Osmundson L.R. 56.1 Stmt., ECF 253 at
¶ 11.3 He also had a history of migraines and sought medical
treatment for headaches and neck pain on multiple occasions. Id.
at ¶ 7. For example, medical records reviewed by defendants’ expert
reflect that in June of 2018, Mr. Love presented to the Community
Hospital emergency department with neck pain and swelling to the
back of the head, and that he returned in November of 2018 with a
primary
complaint
of
a
headache
and
reported
a
history
of
migraines. Ackerman Rep., ECF 228-15 at 8. Additionally, Mr. Love
suffered from diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, and ulnar neuropathy
for which he was prescribed nerve painkillers gabapentin and
Cymbalta. ECF 253 at ¶ 8.
On the date of his fall on January 7, 2019, Mr. Love saw
nurses Anderson and Linda Miller (the latter of whom I refer to as
“Nurse Linda” to differentiate her from defendant nurse Brittany
Mr. Love objects to and purports to deny the Osmundson L.R. 56.1
Statements cited in this paragraph on the ground that they
immaterial and based on hearsay. But the facts are supported by
the record and are uncontroverted, and as I explain elsewhere in
this decision, Mr. Love’s objections are meritless.
3
3
Miller,
a
Wexford
employee
whose
first
name
I
also
use
for
clarity). At his deposition, Mr. Love testified that he received
Tylenol and was told to rest on his bunk. See Love Dep., ECF 2281, at 31-35. This testimony is consistent with the notes Nurse
Linda made in Mr. Love’s chart, which she reviewed and testified
about
at
her
own
deposition.
According
to
these
notes
and
testimony, Nurse Linda saw Mr. Love at 9:34 a.m. on the date of
his fall, observed no visible signs of injury or distress, provided
him pain medication, and told him to report to medical staff if
new symptoms came about. Linda Dep., ECF 234-7 at 39-41.
Later the same day, Mr. Love complained of pain to Nurse
Anderson, who told him that he would see the doctor. Love Dep.,
ECF 228-1, at 33. Mr. Love filed a grievance the following day,
complaining that in the twelve hours since his fall, he had only
been given “pain pills.” ECF 234-4 at 7. He saw Nurses Linda and
Anderson daily in the following days, who continued to give him
Tylenol on top of the pain medication he was already receiving,
but he believed his pain medication was “not strong enough” because
his pain continued. Love Dep., ECF 228-1, at 48:14-16.
On January 23, 2019, Mr. Love saw physician’s assistant Gina
Chung4 and reported intermittent headaches, lower back pain, and
The Sixth Amended Complaint names Ms. Chung as a defendant in
this case, but Mr. Love’s claims against her were dismissed on
March 16, 2022. See ECF 148.
4
4
neck pain. His neurological exam was normal, and PA Chung ordered
a CT scan of his head, x-rays of his cervical (neck) and lumbar
(lower) back, referred him to physical therapy, and prescribed him
a muscle relaxant. ECF 253 at ¶ 11. The following day, Mr. Love
underwent a CT scan of his head and x-rays of his spine. The CT
scan showed a small contusion of the soft tissues overlying the
occipital bone with no other acute intracranial process. The xrays of his neck/cervical spine showed no definite abnormalities,
and X-rays of his lumbar spine showed evidence of his previous
surgery and otherwise demonstrated normal alignment. Id. at ¶ 12.
Mr. Love then saw medical providers at Cook County Jail on
February 3, 13, and 14, 2019. At the first of these visits, which
was with Gina Caputo, a mental health provider, he complained of
neck pain, but at the second visit, he reported to physician’s
assistant Daniel Kaczrowski5 that his occipital pain was resolving,
that
he
was
rarely
experiencing
headaches,
and
that
he
was
“essentially back to baseline.” ECF 253 at ¶¶ 13-14. At the third
encounter, Mr. Love was evaluated for physical therapy for his
lower back pain, which he reported had begun five years earlier.
At that visit, his cervical and trunk mobility were found to be
within functional limits, as were his range of motion in his
The Sixth Amended Complaint names Mr. Kaczrowski as a defendant
in this case, but Mr. Love’s claims against him were dismissed on
March 16, 2022. See ECF 148.
5
5
bilateral upper and lower extremities. He was further found to be
neurologically
intact,
and
no
ongoing
physical
therapy
was
required as he was able to complete all exercises in his home
exercise program without difficulty and could do so as needed. See
id. at ¶ 15.
Mr. Love was transferred into IDOC custody on March 18, 2019.
At his intake examination, he reported no seizures or cerebral
trauma. His head, neck, face, scalp, upper extremities, spine, and
musculoskeletal areas were all normal. Id. at ¶ 16. When he arrived
at IRCC on April 3, 2019, his “Offender Health Status Transfer
Summary”
listed
a
number
of
chronic
conditions
including
hypertension, diabetes, and asthma, as well as a current complaint
of back pain. Id. at ¶ 18; ECF 218-11 (medical records), at 7.
Records of subsequent visits to the IRCC health care unit in April
and May of 2019 reflect complaints of chronic diarrhea, nausea and
vomiting, skin problems, chest pain, neuropathic pain in his legs
and feet, and upper-respiratory infection. See ECF 218-11 (medical
records) at 9-39. None of these records mentions his fall on
January 7, 2019.
Defendants’ expert, neurosurgeon Paul Ackerman, reviewed Mr.
Love’s
medical
records
from
before,
during,
and
after
his
incarceration; Mr. Love’s complaint and deposition testimony; and
selected discovery responses. Based on these materials and his
professional training and experience in neurosurgery, Dr. Ackerman
6
opines that Mr. Love “likely sustained a concussion during his
slip and fall of January 7, 2019,” and that the medical records,
taken as a whole, “indicate that all of the defendants in this
case
evaluated
and
treated
Mr.
Love
appropriately
for
his
concussion.” Ackerman Rep., ECF 228-15 at 9. With respect to the
care Mr. Love received in the aftermath of his fall, Dr. Ackerman
stated, “Tylenol and rest are in fact the first line treatment of
a
mild
concussion,
both
of
which
Plaintiff
conceded
were
recommended” and administered. Id. at 6. Dr. Ackerman thus opined
that Mr. Love “received timely and appropriate pharmacologic pain
medication (i.e. acetaminophen and NSAID’s) and obtained a CT scan
of the head for his persistent headaches.” Id. at 9.
As for the “sporadic headaches” Mr. Love complained about in
the weeks and months following his fall, Dr. Ackerman opines that
these “are more likely than not related either to intermittent
migraines” such as those he suffered prior to his fall, or to his
“poorly-controlled diabetes, smoking, alcohol intake, high blood
pressure or chest pain,” all of which were also observed prior to
his incarceration. Id. Similarly, Dr. Ackerman opines that the
ongoing vision problems that Mr. Love claims are residual to his
fall are more likely related to his poorly-controlled diabetes,
given
evidence
that
Mr.
Love
was
diagnosed
with
“[s]evere
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy of both eyes,” for which he
underwent surgery in 2021. Id. Based on this and other evidence in
7
his medical record, Dr. Ackerman concludes that Mr. Love “is not
suffering from ‘post-concussive syndrome.’” Id.
With
respect
to
his
claims
of
persistent
neck
problems
resulting from his January 2019 fall, Dr. Ackerman opines that
“Mr. Love sustained a cervical strain or whiplash injury during
his fall on January 7, 2019,” for which he was “appropriately
treated...with
muscle
pain
relaxants
medications
(e.g.
(methocarbamol),
Tylenol
and
referred
and
naproxen),
for
physical
therapy.” Id. at 10, 11. Dr. Ackerman observes that nothing in the
record indicates that Mr. Love either complained of or exhibited
objective signs of conditions that would have indicated “more
aggressive
radiographic
investigation
or
treatment,”
in
the
accident’s immediate aftermath, and that the cervical spine x-rays
taken approximately two weeks later “confirmed that Mr. Love had
not sustained an acute cervical fracture or dislocation as a result
of his fall.” Instead, the most remarkable radiographic finding
was Mr. Love’s “decidedly chronic” C5-6 disc space narrowing. Id.
at 11. Indeed, Dr. Ackerman observes that Mr. Love’s medical
records
existing,
reflect
and
“radiographic
previously
evidence
symptomatic,
of
significant,
pre-
C5-6
degenerative
disc
disease well before his incarceration,” and that his condition had
remained “grossly stable” between 2015 and 2020. Id. at 11-12.
Based on the totality of the medical records he reviewed, Dr.
Ackerman concludes that the anterior cervical surgery Mr. Love
8
underwent
in
February
of
2020—which
Mr.
Love
claims
was
necessitated by his fall at the Cook County Jail—were “the result
of progressive cervical spondylosis (i.e. arthritis), a natural,
chronic, degenerative process known to worsen with age.” Id. at
10. In other words, Dr. Ackerman concluded that “the January 2019
fall in no way resulted in or accelerated the timeframe in which
Mr. Love required C5-6 ACDF.” Id. at 12.
Mr. Love did not disclose an expert, nor does he offer any
evidence controverting Dr. Ackerman’s opinions.
II.
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). I view the evidence and
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Mr. Love, as the nonmoving party. Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 652 (7th Cir. 2005).
To survive summary judgment, Mr. Love 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 Mr. Love was detained at Cook County Jail before his
trial and at IRCC after his conviction, his § 1983 claims arise
under two different constitutional amendments requiring different
analyses when it comes to defendants’ mental state. See Pittman by
& through Hamilton v. Madison Cnty., Illinois, 108 F.4th 561, 566,
9
570 (7th Cir. 2024) (explaining that while convicted prisoners,
whose medical care claims proceed under the Eighth Amendment, must
show deliberate indifference using a subjective standard, pretrial
detainees “need not prove a defendant’s subjective awareness of
the risk of harm to prevail on a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
claim.”), reh’g denied, No. 23-2301, 2024 WL 3889635 (7th Cir.
Aug. 21, 2024). But nothing turns on this distinction here, because
under either framework, a plaintiff seeking damages under § 1983
must establish causation. Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
945 F.3d 1027, 1032 (7th Cir. 2019) (“In order to succeed in a
§ 1983 suit, a plaintiff must establish not only that a state actor
violated his constitutional rights, but also that the violation
caused the plaintiff injury or damages.”). Indeed, I need not
decide whether any defendant acted with deliberate indifference
because even assuming that any of them did, Mr. Love offers nothing
to suggest that he was injured by any of their acts or omissions.
With respect to Nurses Anderson and Linda, Mr. Love argues
that
their
putative
failure
concussion
reflects
deliberate
to
“document[]
or
treat[]”
his
indifference.
But
there
no
is
indication that any failure to “document” Mr. Love’s concussion
affected the treatment he received: Tylenol and instructions to
rest, which Dr. Ackerman opined without contradiction was the very
treatment
indicated
for
a
concussion.
Moreover,
there
is
no
evidence that these defendants’ chosen course of treatment had any
10
adverse impact on Mr. Love’s health, or that a different course of
treatment would have yielded a better outcome. To the contrary,
Mr. Love’s records reflect that he reported an improvement in his
concussive symptoms within a few weeks of his accident, which Dr.
Ackerman
opined,
again
without
contradiction,
was
the
normal
timeframe for the type of injury he suffered.
To the extent Mr. Love’s theory is that his pain would have
subsided more quickly had he been given additional pain medication,
such that Nurses Anderson and Linda needlessly prolonged his
suffering by failing to give him “more” medication, that theory
likewise finds no traction in the competent evidence. Mr. Love was
already taking multiple types of painkillers for various chronic
conditions,
and
his
vague
speculation
that
some
unspecified
additional medication would have alleviated his concussive pain—
even assuming that any were indicated on top of the medications he
was already taking—is insufficient to allow a jury to find in his
favor. See Gabb, 945 F.3d at 1033 (the plaintiff’s argument that
he suffered because of the defendant’s “refusal to adopt a ‘better’
course
of
treatment”
was
insufficient
to
withstand
summary
judgment because the plaintiff “does not tell us what that specific
treatment was or how it would have alleviated his back pain.”)
Nor does Mr. Love point to any evidence suggesting that any
act or omission by Dr. Osmundson, Nurse Orkies, or Nurse Brittany
11
caused
him
any
injury.
These
defendants’
factual
statements
emphasize evidence that Mr. Love’s periodic headaches, back pain,
and other problems he experienced while at IRCC and thereafter
resulted from one or more of his numerous chronic conditions that
predated his incarceration. Mr. Love objects to these statements
as
“immaterial”
because
no
one
disputes
that
he
suffered
a
concussion from his fall in the Cook County Jail bathroom. See,
e.g., Pl.’s L.R. 56.1 Resp., ECF 253 at ¶¶ 7-8, 11-23. But the
fact of his concussion does not per se establish that any symptoms
he experienced months and even years later were the result of the
treatment he received (or did not receive) while at IRCC. It bears
recalling that the burden is on Mr. Love to prove that the injuries
he asserts were caused by some act or omission by defendants. His
subjective belief that his ongoing symptoms were the result of
their
failure
to
treat
his
concussion
appropriately
is
insufficient on that score, particularly in light of Dr. Ackerman’s
unchallenged contrary opinion.
While
the
foregoing
analysis
is
directed
to
Mr.
Love’s
constitutional claims, the absence of evidence suggesting a causal
link between defendants’ conduct and the harm he claims to have
suffered
likewise
dooms
his
negligence
claims
against
these
defendants. The essence of a negligence claim is the allegation
that “certain individuals should have acted differently in light
of the duties applicable to them, and that their failure to abide
12
by the relevant standard of care caused [the plaintiff] personal
injury.”). Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 780 (7th Cir. 2008)
(italics in original, additional emphasis added). Mr. Love’s claim
falls short on several fronts, since, as defendants observe, he
fails to identify or engage with the relevant standard of care,
and
he
also
fails
to
say
how
defendants
should
have
acted
differently. But even ignoring these deficiencies, for the reasons
explained above, the record simply does not allow a reasonable
jury to conclude that any defendant’s conduct caused Mr. Love to
suffer a compensable injury.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions for summary
judgment are granted.
ENTER ORDER:
__________________________
Elaine E. Bucklo
United States District Judge
Dated: January 28, 2025
13
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?