Watkins v. Unknown Employees of Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

Filing 214

ORDER denying 197 Motion for New Trial; denying 197 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, Plaintiff's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 9/26/2019. (kll)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TYRELL WATKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROL FAIRLESS,
TRACIE STANFORD,
ADAM HENDERSON, and
RON WHITE,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 3:17-cv-00060-GCS

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Tyrell Watkins suffered a testicular torsion and eventually lost his
testicle while he was incarcerated at Vienna Correctional Center in May 2015. He
filed suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against a number of employees of Wexford
Health Sources, Inc. and of the Illinois Department of Corrections alleging they were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. Following discovery and dispositive motion rulings, this case
proceeded to trial in June 2018 against Defendants Larson, Carter, Henderson,
White, Fairless and Stanford. The trial resulted in a mistrial, as the jury deadlocked
with one juror voting for Plaintiff and the remaining seven voting for Defendants.
The information regarding the breakdown of the jurors’ votes came out after the
Court declared a mistrial.

Page 1 of 5

Days before the case could be re-tried in November 2018, one defendant, Cole
Carter, was dismissed from the action when he produced records showing he was not
working on the days that the events in Watkins’s complaint occurred. This disclosure
set off a string of events that led then-presiding judge, Magistrate Judge Stephen C.
Williams, to conclude that Defendants committed various discovery violations,
including producing incomplete and misleading records to Plaintiff. The Court
decided, as a result of Defendants’ actions, to give instructions about adverse
inferences to the jury at trial. Additionally, Judge Williams limited and prohibited
testimony and various evidence from being presented at trial.
The second trial proceeded against Defendants Carol Fairless, Tracie Stanford,
Adam Henderson and Ron White. After the close of all the evidence, both parties
orally moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 50(a). The Court granted Defendants’ motion as to Defendant Stanford,
finding a clear absence of evidence that she was personally involved in the events
alleged by Watkins. Defendants’ motion was denied as to Defendants Fairless,
Henderson and White. Plaintiff’s motion as to Defendants Henderson and White was
denied as well. The jury began deliberating at 9:00 a.m. on November 16, 2018, and
returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Defendants Fairless, Henderson and White
at 10:51 a.m. (Docs. 181, 190).
Now before the Court is a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and
a motion for new trial filed by Plaintiff Tyrell Watkins. Rule 50 allows a district court
to enter judgment against a party who has been fully heard on an issue during a jury

Page 2 of 5

trial if a “reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find
for the party on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). In weighing a Rule 50 motion, the
“court construes the evidence strictly in favor of the party who prevailed before the
jury and examines the evidence only to determine whether the jury’s verdict could
reasonably be based on that evidence.” Passananti v. Cook County, 689 F.3d 655, 659
(7th Cir. 2012)(citing Tart v. Illinois Power Co., 366 F.3d 461, 464 (7th Cir. 2004)).
The Court must not “make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.”

Passananti, 689 F.3d at 659 (citing Waite v. Board of Trustees of Illinois Comm.
College Dist. No. 508, 408 F.3d 339, 343 (7th Cir. 2005)). Additionally, “the court
‘must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury [was] not
required to believe.’” Id. (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530
U.S. 133, 150-151 (2000)). “Because the Rule 50(b) motion is only a renewal of the
preverdict motion, it can be granted only on grounds advanced in the preverdict
motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), comm. note (2006 amend.).
Plaintiff argues that no reasonable juror could find, based on the facts of this
case, that Defendants White and Henderson were not deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs. In order to prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference, a
prisoner who brings an Eighth Amendment challenge of constitutionally-deficient
medical care must satisfy a two-part test. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 750
(7th Cir. 2011). The first consideration is whether the prisoner has an “objectively
serious medical condition.” Arnett, 658 F.3d at 750. Accord Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d
645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). “A medical condition is objectively serious if a physician has

Page 3 of 5

diagnosed it as requiring treatment, or the need for treatment would be obvious to a
layperson.” Hammond v. Rector, 123 F. Supp. 3d 1076, 1084 (S.D. Ill. 2015)(citing

Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409 (7th Cir.2014)). Prevailing on the subjective prong
requires a prisoner to show that a prison official has subjective knowledge of—and
then disregards—an excessive risk to inmate health. Greeno, 414 F.3d at 653. Even
accepting that a reasonable juror would conclude that Watkins’ testicular torsion,
which led to him losing a testicle, was an objectively serious medical need, the
evidence presented at trial could allow a reasonable juror to conclude that Defendants
were not deliberately indifferent to that need.
Plaintiff points to certain stipulations that were read to the jury at trial.
Defendants concede that each of the stipulations helped Plaintiff and hurt their case.
The parties stipulated that on May 3, 2015, Watkins reported his testicular pain to
Henderson and White, but Watkins was not taken to the healthcare unit that day. In
essence, the parties stipulated that Defendants Henderson and White knew of
Watkins’s pain on May 3, 2015. Watkins was not seen by the healthcare unit for five
days. However, it was entirely a question of fact and thus in the jury’s hands to
determine if Defendants disregarded an excessive risk to Watkins and what role the
Defendants played in the delay in his care.
The evidence in the record could properly support the verdict returned by the
jury, particularly in light of Judge Williams’s pretrial decisions regarding the
admission of certain evidence and giving an adverse inference to the jury, which
helped Plaintiff’s case. While it took five days for Watkins to receive treatment, a

Page 4 of 5

reasonable juror still could conclude that Defendants’ role in that delay was limited
and did not amount to reckless disregard of a serious risk to Watkins for a variety of
reasons. As such, the undersigned will not set aside the jury’s verdict in this action.
Watkins also seeks a new trial based on Defendants’ discovery violations for
which they have been sanctioned. In a single sentence, Watkins argues that
Defendants’ discovery violations warrant a new trial. It is unclear whether Watkins
moves under Rule 50 or under another provision of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Nonetheless, Judge Williams previously determined that the discovery
violations should be addressed under Rule 37. Additionally, there is no evidence that
the jury was presented with inaccurate or misleading evidence favoring Defendants
that weighs in favor of granting Watkins a new trial.
For all these reasons, Watkins’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of
law and for a new trial based on discovery violations is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed by
Magistrate Judge
Gilbert C. Sison
Date: 2019.09.26
12:38:59 -05'00'
______________________________

Dated: September 26, 2019.

GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 5 of 5