Thompson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

Filing 55

ORDER DENYING 49 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 1/5/2018. (jkb2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES,
DOCTOR RITZ, DOCTOR
FEINERMAN, DOCTOR SHEPHERD,
DOCTOR FAHIM, DOCTOR
SHEARING, DOCTOR TROST, and
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 3:17-cv-329-JPG-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Pending before the Court is a Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 49) filed by
Defendant Dr. Shearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
A party may file a motion for a more definite statement where the pleading is so vague or
ambiguous that the party “cannot reasonably prepare a response.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e). Shearing’s
motion asserts he could not reasonably respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint without further clarity
regarding the dates when Dr. Shearing treated Plaintiff Michael Thompson and the alleged
deficiencies in those treatment dates (Doc. 49, p. 2). Specifically, Dr. Shearing alleges the nine
year time period, starting in 2008, too broad for him to adequately prepare a response (Doc. 49, p.
2). The Court notes, however, that Dr. Shearing admits he has not worked at Wexford for some
time (Doc. 49, p. 2), by definition reducing the period of time at issue. Further, the Complaint is
clear that Thompson is alleging that several doctors, including Dr. Shearing, were deliberately
indifferent to his Crohn’s disease, failed to provide him with a prescription for Remicade, and
Page 1 of 2

generally ignored his worsening symptoms resulting in two emergency surgeries, removal of an
extensive amount of his colon, a bladder infection and insertion of a colostomy bag (Doc. 6, pp.
3-4). Given the specifics plead regarding Thompson’s illness and emergency surgeries, Dr.
Shearing’s knowledge of his own employment dates with Defendant Wexford, and his ability to
review the medical records, the Court find the Complaint is not so vague and ambiguous that
Defendant would be unable to prepare a responsive pleading.
Thus, Defendant Shearing’s Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 49) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 5, 2018
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2