Hotchkiss v. David et al

Filing 120

ORDER granting 113 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 4/2/2021. (dhg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES HOTCHKISS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:16-CV-00752-NJR

ALFONSO DAVID, M.D.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant
Alfonso David, M.D. (Doc. 115). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the
Motion and dismisses this action with prejudice.
This action stems from events which occurred during Plaintiff James Hotchkiss’s
(“Hotchkiss”) term of incarceration at Shawnee Correctional Facility, a medium-security
facility operated by the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Hotchkiss entered IDOC custody in 2015. At that time, Hotchkiss already had
arthritis in his left knee, narrowing of his left hip joint, and osteoarthritis (Doc. 115-2). As
a result of a 1987 car accident, Hotchkiss had undergone knee and hip replacement and
his left femur had been repaired by insertion of a metal rod (Doc. 115-1 at 8). Hotchkiss
wore regular tennis shoes at the time he entered custody and already suffered from knee,
hip, and back pain (Id. at 10, 18). Hotchkiss was given standard-issue shoes upon his entry
into custody (Id. at 14).

Page 1 of 8

Hotchkiss was transferred to Shawnee on March 25, 2015 (Doc. 115-4). On April 8,
2015, he was first seen by David for self-reported left hip pain, and David prescribed
Naprosyn for the pain (Doc. 115-3 at 40-46). Through April and May 2015, David claims
that Hotchkiss was repeatedly seen by medical personnel including David for reports of
pain in his hip, left knee, and femur, and he was repeatedly prescribed Naprosyn or given
Ibuprofen for the pain (Id. at 56-51).
In July 2015, after Hotchkiss requested a cane and slow walk permit, David
examined him, observed a normal gait and ambulation, and deemed a slow walk permit
and cane unnecessary (Id. at 53). Hotchkiss also requested a low bunk permit on October
4, 2015. Hotchkiss indicates that at this time he stated to a nurse that he had previously
worn specially fitted orthotic footwear (Doc. 118 at 2-3). David examined him on October
6, 2015, and found a low bunk permit not to be medically indicated based on his gait and
ambulation (Id. at 56).
From October 2015 through February 2016, Hotchkiss repeatedly reported pain in
his left hip and knee and was repeatedly prescribed a variety of painkillers (Doc. 115-3 at
57-75). On at least one occasion, Hotchkiss was found to have accumulated a large
number of pills, indicating that he had not regularly been taking his prescribed
medication (Id. at 61).
On October 8, 2015, Hotchkiss filed his first grievance, complaining that his boots
were causing him discomfort and requesting flat-bottomed shoes (Doc. 115-6). On
November 26, 2015, Hotchkiss requested a low gallery and slow walk permit, stating that
he was having trouble keeping up with the chow line (Id. at 68). He was assessed by a
Page 2 of 8

nurse on December 1, and was found to have a steady gait and walk with adequate speed
and good strength in his lower extremities (Id. at 69). Hotchkiss was nevertheless granted
the low gallery permit, but he was denied the slow walk permit (Id.). Hotchkiss was later
granted the slow walk permit in February 2016 (Id. at 72). On February 6, 2016, Hotchkiss
filed a second grievance claiming that he had not been regularly receiving his pain
medication and indicating that he had filed at least five grievances already (Doc. 115-7 at
4-5). On March 3, 2016, Hotchkiss wrote a letter to the Director of Nursing at Shawnee,
stating that since 1987 he had worn flat-bottomed shoes and speculating that the heels of
his prison-issue shoes were causing pain that might be remedied by tennis shoes
(Doc. 115-6). Although Hotchkiss often had upwards of $100 in his prison trust fund
account, he did not buy tennis shoes, which were available for purchase at the
commissary (Doc. 115-7).
In March 2016, Hotchkiss began complaining of pain in his heel, and he was
repeatedly seen by health care professionals who prescribed various painkillers
(Doc. 115-3 at 76-79). On April 7, 2016, Hotchkiss was seen by Dr. Roderick Matticks for
his complaints of foot pain. Matticks measured Hotchkiss’s legs and discovered that his
left leg was ½ inch shorter than his right leg (Id. at 1). Matticks issued a quad cane, a slow
walk permit, and a double sock permit (Id.). Hotchkiss continued to complain of pain in
his left knee and hip in May and June 2016, and his slow walk permit was renewed (Id.
at 2-6). On July 1, 2016, he was seen by Matticks in regards to his request for orthotic
footwear, and Matticks referred his case for collegial review (Id. at 7). Collegial review
determined that a shoe lift was not medically necessary as the discrepancy in the length
Page 3 of 8

of his legs was only ½ inch, and a ½ inch heel insert was instead an appropriate treatment
(Doc. 115-5 at 21).
On August 21, 2016, the Health Care Unit received Hotchkiss’s ½ inch insert and
gave it to Hotchkiss (Doc. 115-3 at 12). Hotchkiss in his deposition indicated that he
placed it in his shoe for part of a day but felt it was useless (Doc. 115-1 at 26-27). Hotchkiss
continued to register periodic complaints about pain in his leg from September 2016
through April 2017, and he was prescribed various painkillers (Doc. 115-3 at 15-28).
During this period, Hotchkiss was seen by David and stated that he was not wearing the
heel insert because he wanted a shoe lift (Id. at 27). David again referred his case to
collegial review, which again denied the request for a shoe lift as medically unnecessary
for a discrepancy of only ½ inch (Id. at 33-35).
On April 11, 2017, Hotchkiss was seen by physical therapist Cody Hubble, who
prescribed a 30-minute Home Exercise Plan to address pain and flexibility issues arising
from Hotchkiss’s gait (Id. at 37). Hotchkiss consistently refused to perform his daily
exercises (See id. at 103-163).
On September 9, 2017, Hotchkiss was released from Shawnee. He has stated that
he now wears flat-soled shoes and a full-length insert but has not noticed any
improvement in his condition (Doc. 115-1 at 31).
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is only appropriate if the movant “shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack, Inc., 739 F.3d 1055, 1060 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting FED.
Page 4 of 8

R. CIV. P. 56(a)). Once the moving party has set forth the basis for summary judgment,
the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who must go beyond mere allegations and
offer specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. FED. R. CIV. P.
56(e); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,232-24 (1986). The nonmoving party must
offer more than “[c]onclusory allegations, unsupported by specific facts,” to establish a
genuine issue of material fact. Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing
Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990)).
In determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists, the Court must view the
evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion.
Bennington v. Caterpillar Inc., 275 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2001); see also Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). A “court may not assess the credibility of witnesses,
choose between competing inferences or balance the relative weight of conflicting
evidence[.]” Reid v. Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, 749 F.3d 581, 586 (7th Cir.
2014) (quoting Abdullahi v. City of Madison, 423 F.3d 763, 769 (7th Cir. 2005)).
DISCUSSION
A.

Applicable Law
To succeed on a claim based on deliberate indifference in the context of medical

services, an inmate must demonstrate (1) an objectively serious medical need and (2) that
defendants had a subjectively culpable state of mind in acting or failing to act in disregard
of that risk. Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 857 (7th Cir. 2011).
A medical need may be deemed serious if it “has been diagnosed by a physician
as mandating treatment or . . . is so obvious that even a lay person would perceive the
Page 5 of 8

need for a doctor’s attention.” Id. (quoting Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir.
2005)). A medical condition “need not be life-threatening to be serious; rather, it could be
a condition that would result in further significant injury or unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain if not treated.” Id. (quoting Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir.
2010)).
To establish that prison medical staff acted with a subjectively culpable state of
mind, an inmate need not show that harm was actually intended, but merely that
“defendants knew of a substantial risk of harm to the inmate and disregarded the risk.”
Id. (quoting Greeno, 414 F.3d at 653). Medical professionals are entitled to deference when
acting in their professional capacities, and inmates face a heavy burden when bringing
claims of deliberate indifference against them. Id. “A medical professional acting in his
professional capacity may be held to have displayed deliberate indifference only if the
decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional
judgment, practice, or standards, as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually
did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Id. (quoting Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886,
894-95 (7th Cir. 2008)). Merely negligent conduct will not rise to this level—rather, such
conduct must reach a level “showing as something approaching a total unconcern for the
prisoner’s welfare in the face of serious risks.” Rosario v. Brawn, 670 F.3d 816, 821-822 (7th
Cir. 2012) (quoting Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2006)).
B.

Discussion
Here, Hotchkiss has failed to present evidence supporting his claim that special

orthotic footwear was a serious medical need or that David was deliberately indifferent.
Page 6 of 8

First, Hotchkiss was examined multiple times by medical professionals who
consistently found that for a discrepancy of leg length of only ½ inch, orthotic footwear
was not necessary, and heel inserts were the appropriate treatment. Hotchkiss indicates
that he now has the footwear that he so long insisted was necessary, yet he has not seen
any improvement in his condition. There is simply no colorable argument in support of
Hotchkiss’s contention that special footwear was necessary other than his own inexpert
opinion.
As for deliberate indifference, the record shows that numerous medical personnel
devoted a significant amount of time to treating Hotchkiss, seeing him numerous times
and prescribing a range of treatments, including many types of painkillers, heel lifts, and
physical therapy. Hotchkiss appears to have been unwilling to participate in much of this
treatment, having taken his medication irregularly, refused to wear his heel lift, and
rejected physical therapy. Hotchkiss was additionally given special permissions for a low
bunk, slow walking, and double socks. David’s treatment of Hotchkiss in particular
shows no signs of deliberate indifference—even if Hotchkiss is accurate in alleging that
he stated to a nurse that he had previously worn orthotic footwear, this does not support
a finding of deliberate indifference against David, as there is no indication that David
was aware of this remark. Furthermore, even if he had been aware of previous treatment,
he would be justified in conducting his own examination and reaching his own
conclusions as to what course of treatment was medically justified, as he appears to have
done.

Page 7 of 8

While Hotchkiss’s claim against David is premised largely on alleged delay in
treatment, this does not appear to accurately represent Hotchkiss’s issues with the
medical treatment that he received. There does not appear to have been delay in receiving
treatment—Hotchkiss was seen regularly and promptly. While there was some delay in
granting his request for a cane, the initial denial was based on a medical assessment of
his gait, and there is no indication that David’s initial conclusion was unjustified.
Hotchkiss’s main issue is that he was not given orthotic shoes, yet here the Shawnee
medical staff did not give him delayed treatment—rather, they examined him repeatedly
and concluded that the requested treatment was not warranted. Hotchkiss has presented
no evidence to oppose this conclusion apart from his own opinion.
In short, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Hotchkiss, no
reasonable jury could find his allegations plausible, and the Court must dismiss this
action.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS David’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 115) and
DISMISSES this action with prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close
this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 2, 2021
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 8 of 8