Leger v. Spiller et al

Filing 134

ORDER GRANTING 123 MOTION to Enforce Settlement filed by William P. Leger, Jr., and GRANTING 125 MOTION for Extension of Time before entry of Judgment filed by William P. Leger, Jr. This matter shall remain on the Court's docket for 90 days during which the parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. (Responses due by 7/8/2019). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/5/2019. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WILLIAM P. LEGER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KAREN JAIMET, WEXFORD HEALTH
SOURCES, INC., and JOHN DOE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-80-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff William P. Leger injured his right shoulder while incarcerated at the Menard
Correctional Center in November 2010. He injured it again a year later and was eventually
diagnosed with a complete rupture of his right shoulder rotator cuff.
Plaintiff filed suit on January 26, 2015, alleging that Dr. Vipin Shah was deliberately
indifferent to his medical condition by in part, failing to provide surgery. The matter survived
summary judgment and was set for trial on November 20, 2017 (Doc. 107). On November 17,
2017, however, the parties engaged in a settlement conference and subsequently settled this case
(Doc. 116). This matter is now before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement (Doc. 123) and Motion for Extension of Time Before Entry of Judgment
(Doc. 125). For the following reasons, the Motions are GRANTED.
Background
The material terms of the Settlement Agreement are that Plaintiff would receive a monetary
payment and injunctive relief in exchange for a Release and confidentiality. With respect to the
injunctive relief, Defendants (through Dr. Shah/Wexford) agreed to send Plaintiff for an additional
Page 1 of 5

consultation with a surgeon to be evaluated for a possible surgery on his shoulder. The parties
agreed that if the doctor recommended surgery and Plaintiff agreed and was cleared for surgery,
the recommendation would be followed. In exchange, Dr. Shah would be substituted by Wexford
Health Sources, Inc. as the defendant, the Settlement Agreement would remain confidential, each
side would bear their own costs, the state would waive the costs of incarceration, and this case
would be dismissed with prejudice.1 The parties have not signed a written Settlement Agreement
memorializing the agreed settlement terms, but Dr. Shah has been substituted by Wexford as the
defendant (Doc. 128).
In his Motion, Plaintiff sets forth the terms of the settlement including the specific dollar
amount he is to receive. He states that on November 27, 2017, he was sent to Washington
University School of Orthopedic Medicine and was examined by Drs. Aaron Chamberlain
(attending doctor) and Jason Codding (resident). In their report, the doctors indicate that Plaintiff’s
medical history and records were documented, that he underwent a physical examination, that they
reviewed x-ray images of his shoulder, and that he was assessed as having shoulder pain with a
“full-thickness rotator cuff tear” (Doc. 123-1). As to their recommendation, the doctors state, “we
recommended an image-guided glenohumeral injection today” (which was administered on
December 11, 2017). They also recommend that Plaintiff should follow-up as needed (Id.). There
is no mention of a surgical evaluation or plan. In the Motion, Plaintiff states that the effects of the
injection have worn off and that his subsequent requests to return to the orthopedists have been
rejected or ignored by the prison.

1
The settlement conference was held before Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly. After the parties had reached an
agreement, Judge Daly memorialized the material terms of that agreement through Liberty Recording. This Court has
listened to that recording. The only portions of the recording that are not clear are the statements made by the attorney
for Karen Jaimet, Assistant Attorney General Melissa Jennings (who appeared by telephone). Those statements,
however, are not relevant to the particular matter at issue before the Court, namely, the parameters of the medical
evaluation.

Page 2 of 5

Defendant Wexford’s first response to Plaintiff’s motion does not dispute the relevant
representations made therein (Doc. 124). In a supplemental response (Doc. 126)2, Wexford states
that Plaintiff was sent to Dr. Chamberlain for a follow-up appointment on May 21, 2018 and that
Dr. Chamberlain recommended a different type of injection (“guided subacromial injection”) and
referral to a physiatry for evaluation of Plaintiff’s pain and related symptoms. (Doc. 126-1, p. 5).
Again, there is no mention of a surgical evaluation or plan. Plaintiff was then seen by a Physician
Assistant on June 29, 2018, who recommended another injection (identical to the first type)
followed by physical therapy and icing of the shoulder. In a reply brief, Plaintiff reiterates that no
doctor has provided a recommendation or treatment plan as to surgery.
Neither party has provided the Court with a copy of the draft Settlement Agreement.
Emails exchanged between the parties reveal that while Wexford’s counsel was diligent in
attempting to reduce the Agreement to writing, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond in a meaningful
way.
On March 11, 2019, the parties were directed to file status reports indicating further
developments in settling this matter (Doc. 129). Wexford reports that Plaintiff has been evaluated
by the medical director at Pinckneyville, Dr. Meyer, (who does not appear to be an orthopedic
surgeon), that he has been prescribed pain medication and a course of physical therapy, and that
Plaintiff may be sent back to the orthopedic surgeon for further evaluation after he completes
physical therapy (Doc. 130). Plaintiff states that he still has not been evaluated for surgery (Doc.
133).

2

Local Rule 7.1(g) directs parties to seek leave of Court prior to filing a supplemental brief. In addition, this
Court’s Case Management Procedures requires parties to seek leave of Court prior to filing a Reply. Defendant did
not seek leave of Court to file a supplemental brief and Plaintiff did not seek leave of Court to file a Reply. While
the Court admonishes the parties for disregarding Local Rules and the Court’s Case Management Procedures, in the
interest of justice and in the interest of disposing of this matter which has gone on for far too long, it will allow and
consider the filings.

Page 3 of 5

Discussion
A district court possesses the inherent or equitable power to enforce an agreement to settle
a case pending before it. Wilson v. Wilson, 46 F.3d 660, 664 (7th Cir. 1995). Such agreements
are enforceable under Illinois law if there is clearly an offer and acceptance of the compromise
and a meeting of the minds as to the terms of the agreement. Dillard v. Starcon Int'l, Inc., 483
F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir. 2007). “The essential terms must be definite and certain so that a court
can ascertain the parties’ agreement from the stated terms and provisions.” Dillard, 483 F.3d 507
(quotation marks omitted). The agreement may be summarily enforced and the Court need not
examine the circumstances surrounding the settlement. Wilson, 46 F.3d at 667; Newkirk v. Vill. of
Steger, 536 F.3d 771, 774 (7th Cir. 2008).
The parties agree that they have settled this matter and that the fact there is no written
agreement would not prevent enforcement of the settlement.3 The essential terms of the agreement
are definite. Thus, the only question before the Court is whether Wexford fulfilled its end of the
bargain. It has not.
A material term of the settlement is that Plaintiff was to be evaluated for surgery by a
surgeon, preferably located in St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff was sent to Dr. Chamberlain, an
orthopedic surgeon in St. Louis. But Dr. Chamberlain did not conduct an assessment of whether
and what type of surgery was necessary and appropriate. There is no mention of a surgical option
in the doctor’s report, no indication of what type of surgery would be appropriate, and no mention
of whether surgery was even considered and rejected as a viable option. The doctor’s report is
simply devoid of any indication that he actually evaluated Plaintiff for possible surgery. While
Wexford claims that Plaintiff got what he wanted – a consultation with a surgeon – it is

3

Because there is no dispute that an agreement was reached or as to the material terms of the agreement, no evidentiary
hearing on the Motion is required.

Page 4 of 5

disingenuous to claim that a consultation without a meaningful surgical evaluation is what Plaintiff
wanted, and more importantly, what Defendant agreed to provide. As such, Defendant has reneged
on a material term of the settlement agreement.4
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. 123)
and Motion for Extension of Time Before Entry of Judgment (Doc. 125) are GRANTED.
Defendant Wexford is ORDERED to arrange for Plaintiff to receive a proper surgical evaluation
by an orthopedic surgeon, to take place within 60 days of the entry of this Order and to include
whether and what type of surgery is recommended to address Plaintiff’s shoulder condition.5
Further, the parties are ORDERED to execute a written Settlement Agreement within 30 days of
the date of this Order. This matter shall remain on the Court’s docket for 90 days during
which the parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 5, 2019

STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

4

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff violated the confidentiality agreement when he filed his Motion. He disclosed
all the material terms of the agreement, including a specific dollar amount, when he should have filed the Motion
under seal. That said, the interests of justice do not allow Defendant to escape its obligations under the circumstances.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to seal the Motion (Doc. 123).
5
It goes without saying that Defendant should ensure that the doctor who evaluates Plaintiff’s surgical options should
be given Plaintiff’s medical records relating to his shoulder condition, including Dr. Richard Morgan’s records and
the records from Plaintiff’s subsequent medical treatment.

Page 5 of 5