BABCOCK v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 132

POST-TRIAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER - Mr. Babcock has not shown that the BOP was negligent. Therefore, he is not entitled to relief under the FTCA. Final judgment shall issue by separate entry. SEE ORDER. Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 8/19/2021.(KAA)

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 566

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
EUGENE RAY BABCOCK,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

No. 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD

POST-TRIAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
Ray Babcock has sued the United States for negligence in violation of the
Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). Mr. Babcock alleges that, while in federal
custody with the United States Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") a few months after a
hip replacement surgery, he fell twice in the shower and did not receive
adequate medical care, causing him unnecessary pain and to need a
subsequent hip revision surgery.
On May 6–7, 2021, the Court held a bench trial on these claims. 1 For
the reasons explained in the following findings of fact and conclusions of law,
Mr. Babcock has not shown that the BOP was negligent, so his claim for relief
under the FTCA is denied.

The Court appointed Kathleen Matsoukas and Allison Scarlott to represent Mr. Babcock
through trial and entry of final judgment. See dkt. 65; dkt. 82. They provided Mr. Babcock
with excellent representation. The Court expresses its gratitude to Ms. Matsoukas and Ms.
Scarlott for accepting the appointment and for their service to the Court.

1

1

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 567

I.
Background
In 2005, Ray Babcock was injured while operating a forklift on the job,
requiring neck surgery, a right-hip replacement, and ankle surgery. He
received workers compensation and disability benefits after this accident. On
March 9, 2016, Mr. Babcock, who was then in his late fifties, had surgery to
replace his arthritic left hip. See dkt. 125 at 1 (Stipulation ¶ 1); Ex. 2 at 191–
92.
After being sentenced to 28 months' imprisonment in the BOP, see Ex. 6
at 4–5, Mr. Babcock reported to the Terre Haute Federal Correctional
Institution ("FCI Terre Haute") on June 16, 2016; was transferred to a
residential reentry center on December 14, 2017; and was released from BOP
custody on June 6, 2018. See dkt. 125 at 1 (Stipulation ¶¶ 4–6); Ex. 6 at 44,
122; Ex. 1J at 38; Ex. 4 at 21. Around June 28, 2018, Mr. Babcock had
revision surgery on his left-hip replacement because it had loosened. See dkt.
125 at 1–2 (Stipulation ¶ 7).
In this case, Mr. Babcock alleges that he was injured as a result of the
BOP's negligence. Dkt. 1. Mr. Babcock alleges that during the first few
months of his incarceration at FCI Terre Haute, he slipped and fell in the
shower on two occasions––July 4, 2016 and again on August 16, 2016. He
also alleges that the treatment and medical care he was given by the BOP while
incarcerated at FCI Terre Haute was inadequate.
At the bench trial, 12 witnesses testified: Mr. Babcock; six of his medical
providers (Dr. Elizabeth Trueblood, Dr. Sami Jaafar, Physician Assistant ("PA")
2

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 568

Genevieve Daugherty, 2 PA Heather Mata, Physical Therapist ("PT") Ashley
Matchett, and Registered Nurse ("RN") Matthew Worthington); an expert
medical witness (Dr. Kevin Goebke); and four BOP officers and administrators
(William Cope, Stephen Snyder, Michael Miller, and Jeff Lamping). The parties
stipulated to the admissibility of the following exhibits that were referenced
during the trial: BOP medical records (Ex. 1A–K, 21–22); outside medical
records (Ex. 2–4); Mr. Babcock's complaints (Ex. 5, 17–18); BOP administrative
records (Ex. 6–7, 13–16); BOP policies (Ex. 8–9); photos and diagrams of BOP
facilities (Ex. 10–12); Dr. Goebke's CV and expert report (Ex. 19–20); and
summary exhibits (Ex. 23–25).
II.
Analysis
A. Applicable law
Under the FTCA, a plaintiff may bring a civil action against the United
States for damages arising from an injury "caused by the negligent or wrongful
act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the
scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United
States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with
the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346(b)(1). In other words, "the United States waives sovereign immunity
under circumstances where local law would make a private person liable in

PA Daugherty testified that a Physician Assistant is a mid-level provider that, like a
physician, can diagnose and treat patients and order and interpret lab results. Her last name
is now "Muscatell"; the Court uses her former name because it appears in the medical records.

2

3

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 569

tort." United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43, 44 (2005) (emphasis omitted). This
provision allows "federal inmates [to] bring suit for injuries they sustain in
custody as a consequence of the negligence of prison officials." Buechel v.
United States, 746 F.3d 753, 758 (7th Cir. 2014).
Because liability under the FTCA hinges on "the law of the place where
the act or omission occurred," 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), Indiana law governs
liability, see Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 305 (1992) ("[T]he extent of
the United States' liability under the FTCA is generally determined by reference
to state law."). Under Indiana law, a "plaintiff seeking damages for negligence
must establish a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, a breach of the
duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach of duty." Pfenning v.
Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392, 398 (Ind. 2011) (numbering omitted).
B. Mr. Babcock's claims
Mr. Babcock argues that five "critical failures" amounted to negligence.
First, that the BOP did not provide him with "basic accommodations" on his
arrival to FCI Terre Haute. Second, that the BOP did not maintain safe shower
conditions in his unit, which led to his July 4, 2016 fall. Third, that the BOP
did not provide him with "reasonable and sufficient medical care" after this
July 4 fall. Fourth, that the BOP did not provide him with appropriate medical
care after his August 16, 2016 fall. And fifth, that the BOP did not provide
appropriate medical care after a June 29, 2017, diagnosis of hip-replacement
loosening.

4

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 570

1. Accommodations on arrival
Mr. Babcock contends that the BOP knew that he had hip replacement
surgery approximately three months before he arrived at FCI Terre Haute, yet it
failed to provide him with necessary accommodations, including a cane,
crutches, a bottom bunk, and a first-floor cell. See dkt. 124 at 2. The United
States responds that the BOP did not breach its duty of care. See dkt. 122 at
11.
a. Findings of fact
It's uncontested that, when he arrived at FCI Terre Haute on June 16,
2016, Mr. Babcock was placed in a general population cell on the second floor
in a top bunk and that he did not have walking-assistive devices like a walker,
cane, or crutches with him in the facility. The parties contest, however,
whether the BOP had sufficient notice of the severity of Mr. Babcock's mobility
limitations when he entered BOP custody.
Mr. Babcock's "Intake Screening Form" asked whether there is "any
reason that [he] should not be placed in general population"—he checked "No."
Ex. 6 at 105. The form also asked if he "wish[ed] to self-identify . . . any
disability, and/or self-perception of vulnerability," and he again checked "No."
Id. At a health-screen appointment with a registered nurse on his intake day,
the nurse did not record any "[c]urrent medical conditions" or treatments, and
Mr. Babcock "[d]enied" any "[c]urrent painful condition" and the use of any
"[p]rosthetic devices/equipment." Ex. 1A at 4–6.

5

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 571

Mr. Babcock also testified that while he had "slight pain" when he
entered BOP custody, he was "actually doing well," "wasn't limping" when
walking laps around the track, and "was progressing." Indeed, the discharge
instructions from his hip surgery from March—several months before he
entered FCI Terre Haute—stated that he could "resume normal activity" and
could shower five days after his surgery. Ex. 5 at 7.
And although Mr. Babcock had several active prescriptions when he
entered BOP custody, none were pain medications prescribed by the doctor
who performed his left hip replacement. See Ex. 5 at 3; Ex. 1A at 1–2 (listing
Dr. Stirton as the prescriber for Tramadol, which was not on Mr. Babcock's
active prescription list on June 8, 2016). Mr. Babcock's general practitioner,
Dr. Kevin Boyd, prescribed Mr. Babcock hydrocodone-acetaminophen, Xanax,
carisoprodol; and a neurologist, Dr. Karna Sherwood, prescribed him
gabapentin. See Ex. 5 at 3; Ex. 1A at 1–2. Dr. Trueblood, one of Mr. Babcock's
treating physicians at FCI Terre Haute, testified that each of these medications
was an "addictive" controlled substance, which concerned her that Mr.
Babcock was "abusing drugs." Dr. Trueblood also testified that the BOP never
prescribes active medications without verifying them with a treatment provider.
And while Mr. Babcock testified that he brought a cane with him on
arrival, the only recorded item of personal property in his possession on arrival
was a pair of eyeglasses. See Ex. 6 at 99 ("Inmate Personal Property Record"
signed by Mr. Babcock on June 16, 2016). In resolving the conflict between
Mr. Babcock's testimony that he brought a cane with him to FCI Terre Haute
6

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 572

and the prison's records, the Court credits the latter. First, Mr. Babcock
testified inconsistently regarding other items in his possession, such as
eyeglasses, at FCI Terre Haute. Mr. Babcock testified that he did not receive
glasses until a year after his arrival, but BOP records show that he received a
new pair of glasses three months after his arrival, see Ex. 1C at 45. Moreover,
as discussed below, there are numerous other inconsistencies in Mr. Babcock's
testimony that have the cumulative effect of discrediting his version of events.
The Court does not credit Mr. Babcock's claim that prison officials confiscated
a cane from him when he arrived at FCI Terre Haute and instead finds it more
likely that Mr. Babcock did not have a cane with him upon arrival.
On June 17, 2016, Mr. Babcock had his first appointment with PA
Daugherty. See Ex. 1A at 26–27. PA Daugherty testified that Mr. Babcock had
a normal gait and did not report that he was disabled, unable to be housed in
general population, or had any issues with his mobility. See id.
On June 20, Mr. Babcock had an intake physical and reported that he
had "pain all over––multiple joints, neuropathy," id. at 15, but he did not
specifically report any difficulty walking. Instead, PA Daugherty found that Mr.
Babcock had a full range of motion in his spine and legs. See id. at 20–22.
She still ordered an x-ray of his left hip because of his history of "hip
replacement," id. at 24, and he had this x-ray on June 22, 2016. At trial, Mr.
Babcock conceded that the results of this x-ray were "normal." See Ex. 1B at
21.

7

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 573

And nothing in the record shows that Mr. Babcock requested an assistive
device before the BOP gave him crutches on August 18, 2016. See id. at 22–
23. Mr. Babcock's first documented request for a lower bunk in a first-floor
cell is from September 9, 2016. Ex. 1C at 19–20. Although Mr. Babcock
testified that he was not moved to a lower bunk until the "very end of [his]
sentence," BOP records show that his "Medical Duty Status" was changed to
reflect a lower bunk in a first-floor cell on September 13, 2016. See id.; Ex. 1K
at 20; see Ex. 1F at 10; Ex. 1I at 28.
b. Conclusions of law
"[T]he duty of care owed by the Bureau of Prisons to federal prisoners is
fixed by 18 U.S.C. § 4042," United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 164–65
(1963), which requires the BOP to "provide suitable quarters and . . . for the
safekeeping, care, and subsistence" for inmates, 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2).
However, there is "no hint that Indiana law would differ" from the federal
statute in this context. See Parrott v. United States, 536 F.3d 629, 637 (7th
Cir. 2008).
The "critical factor" in assessing whether a custodian breached its duty of
care is how much notice it had of a risk to an inmate; other "relevant" factors
include "[t]he condition of the inmate, the circumstances of the jail, and the
extent of routine precautions." Sauders v. Cnty. of Steuben, 693 N.E.2d 16, 19
(Ind. 1998); see Parrott, 536 F.3d at 637 ("Applicable state tort law (here, the
law of Indiana) governs whether the duty was breached and whether the breach
was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries."). Notice of a risk to the
8

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 574

inmate is "critical" because a "defendant is not required to take any action until
he knows or has reason to know that the plaintiff is endangered, or is ill or
injured." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A cmt. f.
Based on the above findings of fact, Mr. Babcock has not shown that the
BOP had notice of any risk to Mr. Babcock or that he had a need for special
accommodations when he entered its custody. See Sauders, 693 N.E.2d at 19.
As a result, the BOP acted reasonably at intake and thus did not breach the
duty of care owed to Mr. Babcock.
To the extent that Mr. Babcock also alleges that the BOP did not
accommodate his mobility limitations after the BOP had notice of his requests
on September 9, 2016, Mr. Babcock has not shown a breach of the BOP's duty
to provide him with reasonable care. See 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2). After it had
notice of his mobility limitations, the BOP acted reasonably by providing him
with crutches by August 18, 2016, Ex. 1B at 21, medical shoes on September
8, 2016, Ex. 1C at 14, and a lower bunk in a first-floor cell on September 13,
2016, Ex. 1C at 19–20; Ex. 1K at 20; see Ex. 1F at 10; Ex. 1I at 28. Therefore,
Mr. Babcock has not shown that the United States breached its duty of care
with respect to his accommodations on arrival.
2. Shower conditions for the alleged July 4, 2016 fall
Mr. Babcock argues that the BOP did not maintain safe shower
conditions in his cell block, which caused him to slip and fall on July 4, 2016.
Mr. Babcock claims that the shower floor had several inches of standing water
because the drain didn't work properly, that it was slippery because it had a lot
9

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 575

of soap buildup, that it lacked no-slip floor mats, that there was nothing to
hold onto or a shower chair, and that he had to step over a tall "lip" to enter the
shower. Mr. Babcock contends that, but for the poor conditions the shower
where he allegedly fell, at least some of his hip pain and eventual need for a hip
replacement would not have occurred.
The United States responds that Mr. Babcock has not shown that he fell
on July 4. See dkt. 122 at 9. The United States points to the lack of
documentation and corroborating witnesses, and Mr. Babcock's inconsistent
testimony. See id.
a. Findings of fact
Mr. Babcock has offered conflicting accounts of the July 4 fall. He
testified that, after showering and getting his boxers on, he fell on the concrete
lipping on the edge of the shower after his left leg got caught in his pant leg.
Ex. 1B at 22 (emphasis added). However, in his Notice of Tort Claim filed on
July 20, 2016, he stated that he fell while "entering" the shower. Ex. 5 at 1.
And in his verified complaint in this case, Mr. Babcock stated that he fell "upon
entry into the shower," "striking his head and neck on a metal protrusion in
the shower," dkt. 1 at 3 ¶¶ 9, 11, which, at trial, he said was a
"misconception." Moreover, on August 8, 2016, PA Daugherty recorded that
Mr. Babcock told her he "fell off [his] bunk about 1 month ago," not that he fell
in the shower. See Ex. 1B at 3–5. And during his work-up for hip replacement
surgery two years later––when he had a strong incentive to be truthful––Mr.
Babcock "denie[d] any inciting trauma" for his left hip problems. Ex. 4 at 8.
10

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 576

Mr. Babcock also testified that he told Officer Cope, who was on duty on
the day of his fall, about "splotch[ed] blood" from the incident while holding a
towel to his head, to which Officer Cope allegedly responded that he had
already spoken to the medical department, which could not see him on July 4
because it was a holiday. Yet Dr. Trueblood testified that a nurse is available
24/7, even on holidays. And Officer Cope testified that his office was only
about 10 feet from the shower, but he did not see or hear anything about a fall,
observe visible injuries on Mr. Babcock, or see Mr. Babcock bleeding on that
day. Officer Cope described the prison's incident log for July 4, 2016, which
contained over 20 incident entries but none for a fall. See Ex. 13 at 11–12; Ex.
16 at 1–4; cf. Ex. 14 (August 16, 2016 log noting Mr. Babcock's other reported
fall). Officer Cope testified that he records anything significant that happens in
his unit in that log, including visible head injuries and bleeding. He cited an
example from July 1, 2016, where he recorded in the log that a different inmate
had complained that he was "urinating blood." See Ex. 13 at 13.
And although Mr. Babcock testified that there is usually a line of 2–10
people waiting for the shower and that he complained about the shower to
"anybody that would listen," Mr. Babcock has designated no evidence showing
that others witnessed or heard about any difficulties he had with the shower or
that he suffered from a fall in July 2016. Indeed, Officer Miller, who also had
an office close to the shower, testified that he did not recall Mr. Babcock falling
in the shower or having problems entering, exiting, or using the shower.
Moreover, while Mr. Babcock testified that, in the afternoon of July 5, he
11

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 577

walked "all the way [to] the opposite side of the prison, about a block" to make
commissary purchases, no witness testified that they saw Mr. Babcock with
visible injuries or having difficulty walking at this time. See Ex. 12 (Map of
Facility).
Officer Miller also testified about an informal grievance form that he filled
out with Mr. Babcock the day after the alleged fall––July 5, 2016––that
contained nothing about a fall or injuries from a fall; it reported only Mr.
Babcock's complaint that his medications had been discontinued. See Ex. 17
at 1 (Mr. Babcock "states that his meds were discontinued for no reason" and
that he requested "to have his meds that are prescribed.").
At trial, Mr. Babcock testified that this was "an accurate reflection" of his
July 5 complaint and that his need for a "stronger pain medicine" was "really
heavy on [his] mind" because he was hurting after the fall. Mr. Babcock
conceded that he did not "put anything on there about the fall," claiming that
he had already complained by other means. Officer Miller, who completed the
grievance form for Mr. Babcock, also testified that Mr. Babcock did not
complain about a fall during their interaction and that he did not recall seeing
any visible injuries or bleeding. Officer Miller also testified that had Mr.
Babcock reported a fall, injuries, or bleeding to him, he would have
documented it and there likely would have been an investigation into the
source of his injuries. The evidence does not support Mr. Babcock's claim that
he reported an injury from a fall in July 2016 to prison officials, or that prison

12

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 578

officials were otherwise notified that Mr. Babcock had been injured in a fall
around that time.
Mr. Babcock also had numerous interactions with administrative and
medical personnel within a short time after the alleged July fall, and he did not
mention a fall in any of those interactions. From July 4 through July 13,
2016, Mr. Babcock emailed FCI Terre Haute's Health Services Department, Ex.
1A at 35–36, and saw a dentist and a psychologist, see id. at 39, 43, without
mentioning a fall. For example, at an appointment with a psychologist on July
11, Mr. Babcock noted that "he ha[d] not been sleeping well and continue[d] to
experience chronic pain," but the report did not mention a fall or any recent
aggravation of his injury. Id. at 43. It was not until July 13, over a week after
the alleged incident, that Mr. Babcock emailed Health Services stating that he
was in "extreme pain cause of hip replacement an[d] the fall in shower [he] had
on July 4." Id. at 44.
On July 19, Mr. Babcock was seen by Dr. Trueblood, whom Mr. Babcock
testified was "kind and caring," for a "Chronic Care Clinic encounter," see Ex.
1A at 47, but Mr. Babcock's descriptions of the encounter do not match the
medical records. After an exam of his skin, head, neck, and shoulder, Dr.
Trueblood recorded a large abdominal hernia but no other swelling or
deformities. Id. at 48–49. Dr. Trueblood's notes recorded that Mr. Babcock's
head was "atraumatic," see id., and she testified that she did not observe a
head injury on Mr. Babcock at this appointment.

13

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 579

Mr. Babcock, in contrast, testified that Dr. Trueblood "felt the knot on
[his head]" that still had "a little bit of the scabbing" from the fall and told him
that it was "quite a knot." In his Notice of Tort Claim filed on July 20, 2016,
Mr. Babcock stated that Dr. Trueblood's July 19 examination "verified the
contusion and abrasion to [his] head, noted the development of scarring and
unsightly disfigurement," "noted localized pain and swelling in [his] []neck and
upper back area, and attributed" all of this "to the injuries suffered at the time
of the slip and fall accident." Ex. 5 at 2. Given the inconsistencies in Mr.
Babcock's other testimony, the Court credits Dr. Trueblood's account and her
contemporaneous records on this point over Mr. Babcock's testimony.
b. Conclusions of law
Under Indiana law, negligence demands a "causal connection between
the negligence and the hurt." Peters v. Forster, 804 N.E.2d 736, 739 (Ind.
2004) (citation omitted). "This element requires, at a minimum, causation in
fact—that is, that the harm would not have occurred 'but for' the defendants'
conduct." Taylor v. Cmty. Hosps. of Indiana, Inc., 949 N.E.2d 361, 364 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2011) (citation omitted); see City of Gary ex rel. King v. Smith & Wesson
Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222, 1243–44 (Ind. 2003) (noting that causation has "two
aspects": (1) "causation in fact" and (2) "scope of liability").
The evidence does not show that Mr. Babcock slipped and fell in the
shower on July 4, 2016 or that any fall around that time at FCI Terre Haute
caused his hip problems, so Mr. Babcock has failed to show causation.

14

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 580

3. Medical care after the alleged July 4, 2016 fall
Mr. Babcock contends that he did not receive reasonable and sufficient
medical care for 15 days after he slipped and fell in the shower on July 4,
2016, despite having told correctional officers about his need for care, sending
several emails requesting care, and visiting sick call numerous times. The
United States responds that the BOP did not breach its duty to provide
reasonable care. See dkt. 122 at 11.
a. Findings of fact
The evidence does not show that Mr. Babcock fell in the shower in July
2016 or that he informed BOP employees of the alleged fall before July 13,
2016. See Ex. 1A at 44. Mr. Babcock testified that, on the morning of July 5,
he went to "sick call" 3 at 6:00 a.m. and filled out a slip of paper about the
incident to which the medical team told him that he would be "put on a call
out." 4 Although BOP records include numerous sick call encounters with Mr.
Babcock, see, e.g., Ex. 1A at 45 (July 15, 2016), 59 (July 25, 2016); Ex. 1B at
15 (Aug. 15, 2016); Ex. 1C at 19 (Sept. 9, 2016), 24 (Sept. 13, 2016); Ex. 1F at
19 (Dec. 16, 2016); Ex. 1G at 32 (Mar. 6, 2017), there is no record of a sick call
encounter on July 5. And RN Worthington testified that every sick call is

3 Dr. Trueblood testified that FCI Terre Haute offers "sick call" triage encounters that resemble
walk-in appointments with urgent-care centers four days per week. At these encounters,
inmates can report any acute health problems or concerns about chronic ongoing problems.
For more urgent problems and medical emergencies, inmates can be seen right away. But for
other problems, inmates are scheduled for "call out" appointments in the future.

PA Daugherty testified that a "call out" is like a pre-scheduled appointment with a medical
professional.
4

15

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 581

logged in the BOP's medical records. The Court therefore draws the reasonable
inference that Mr. Babcock did not go to sick call on July 5.
Mr. Babcock notified Health Services about a fall on July 13, 2016, and
was examined by Dr. Trueblood on July 19. See Ex. 1A at 57. After her
examination, Dr. Trueblood ordered an x-ray of Mr. Babcock's spine, a physical
therapy consult, and prescribed him several medications, including a
prescription-dose of Naproxen, an anti-inflammatory pain medication. See id.
at 50, 57, 62–64. Dr. Trueblood advised Mr. Babcock that, because of his
history of substance abuse, she would not prescribe him narcotics because she
did not want him to "substitut[e] one addiction for another." At trial, Mr.
Babcock testified that he has suffered from a "lifetime battle" with addiction
and that his drug use contributed to his federal arrest, so her concerns were
not without merit.
A few days later––on July 25, 2016––a radiologist concluded that there
was "[n]o radiographic evidence for fracture or malalignment." Ex. 1A at 62–
63. On August 8, PA Daugherty examined Mr. Babcock and prescribed him
Elavil for his "unspecified" pain and requested an offsite pain management
appointment for steroid injections, a neurosurgery evaluation of his neck,
physical therapy for his hips, medical shoes, and neck pain. Ex. 1B at 4–7. PA
Daugherty testified that he had a "normal" gait and that there were "no
abnormal findings" at this exam.
On August 11, Mr. Babcock had an appointment with a physical
therapist, PT Matchett. Ex. 1B at 10. At this appointment, Mr. Babcock
16

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 582

complained about his "thin mattress," that his "meds [were] taken away," and
about the alleged July 4 fall in the shower. Id. PT Matchett noted that Mr.
Babcock's gait showed "poor hip control in stance" and a "mildly limited" range
of motion in his hip. Id. PT Matchett recorded that, if Mr. Babcock focused
"more on his physical health, he can start to move better and feel better." Id.
b. Conclusions of law
Based on this record, Mr. Babcock has not shown that the BOP breached
its duty of providing reasonable medical care between July 4 and August 16,
2016. Dr. Goebke, the United States' expert witness who serves as the Interim
Chief Medical Officer and Chair of the Family Medicine Department at Indiana
University Health, testified that, based on his review of the medical records,
Mr. Babcock received "excellent care" and "all of the resources [he] would
expect" for a patient even outside the prison context. See Brock v. Wilson, 727
F. App'x 857, 860 (7th Cir. 2018) ("Indiana typically requires expert medical
testimony to determine whether a physician's conduct fell below the applicable
standard of care.") (citation omitted). And Mr. Babcock has not rebutted this
expert testimony. See id. Even if the fall occurred, the BOP did not ignore any
of Mr. Babcock's complaints. See id. (finding that defendants did not
"disregard [the inmate's] need for exams and treatment"); Ex. 25. And the
record shows that the BOP treated Mr. Babcock frequently with a variety of
medical providers, diagnostic tools, and treatments. See id.
Nevertheless, Mr. Babcock cites Gilmore v. Decker, No. 2:16-cv-00209,
2020 WL 1443198 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 25, 2020), in arguing that the BOP breached
17

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 18 of 30 PageID #: 583

its duty of care. That case involved a FTCA claim against the BOP by an
inmate who "suffered with extreme chest pain caused by a life-threatening
medical condition in his cell without any medical attention or treatment for
eleven days," a condition that ultimately required him to spend 50 days in the
hospital due to multiple organ failures and face "a deathbed visit with his
family." Id. at *5–7. That is a far cry from the situation here, where the
evidence shows that the BOP responded to the medical conditions that Mr.
Babcock communicated to it with a variety of tests and treatments from
medical providers.
Therefore, Mr. Babcock's negligence claim based on any failure to treat
between July 4 and August 16, 2016, fails because the BOP did not breach its
duty of care.
4. Medical care after August 16, 2016 fall
Mr. Babcock argues that the BOP did not provide sufficient medical care
after he slipped and fell in a different cell block on August 16, 2016. 5 He
contends that he did not receive adequate medical care after this fall even
though he emailed about his pain many times and told providers that he
thought something was wrong with his hip replacement. The United States
responds that the BOP provided an appropriate level of care. Dkt. 122 at 11.

5 Mr. Babcock does not separately allege and has not introduced evidence that this block's
shower conditions on August 16 constitute negligence, and Mr. Babcock's original BOP
grievance and his complaint did not allege that this second fall caused his injuries. Without
evidence, the Court cannot reasonably infer that the shower conditions in this cell block was a
cause of his injuries.

18

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 19 of 30 PageID #: 584

a. Findings of fact
Between August 16, 2016 (the date of the second fall at issue) and June
29, 2017 (the first medical record identifying hip loosening), Mr. Babcock
received appropriate medical treatment. Two days after the fall––on August 18,
2016––Mr. Babcock had an x-ray on his left hip. Ex. 1B at 17, 21. A
radiologist determined, after comparing the x-ray results to an x-ray from June
2016, that "[t]he hardware appear[ed] intact" with "[n]o acute fracture or
dislocation identified" and no "evidence of hardware failure." Id. at 21.
Also on August 18, Mr. Babcock had an appointment with PA Daugherty,
who saw no "obvious hip deformity" and noted that Mr. Babcock had been
given crutches. Ex. 1B at 22–23. She prescribed him a narcotic pain
medication, Tylenol with Codeine ("Tylenol #3"), which he appears to have been
prescribed consistently until March 2017, when Dr. Trueblood started tapering
him off the medication. See id. at 24; Ex. 1C at 7, 25; Ex. 1D at 8; Ex. 1E at
12; Ex. 1F at 13; Ex. 1G at 5, 21–22, 30, 46, 48–51. PA Daugherty recorded
that she offered him a cell on the first floor (a "low tier") at this appointment
"but he refused saying that he didn't want to 'go through the trouble.'" Ex. 1B
at 22. Although Mr. Babcock testified that his was "not true at all," the Court
credits the testimony of PA Daugherty as corroborated by contemporaneous
medical records over Mr. Babcock's testimony which, as noted above, is
inconsistent in a number of areas and respects.
The next week, on August 25, Dr. Trueblood examined Mr. Babcock. See
Ex. 1B at 30. She recorded that the x-ray "returned negative" and that Mr.
19

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 20 of 30 PageID #: 585

Babcock had been using "crutches mostly for stability due to hip pain." Id.
She recorded that his "left hip" had a "good" range of motion and that she
performed an exam of, among other things, his skin, head, and neck, with no
abnormalities recorded. See id. at 31–32 (recording head as "Atraumatic" and
"[n]o contusions noted"). Dr. Trueblood prescribed Mr. Babcock two antiinflammatory medications (Medrol and Ibuprofen) in addition to his
prescription for Tylenol #3. Id.
On September 1, Mr. Babcock had a physical therapy appointment with
PT Matchett, who approved him for medical shoes and recommended a consult
with an orthopedist to review and evaluate his left hip pain. Ex. 1C at 2–4.
Thereafter, Mr. Babcock regularly had appointments with PT Matchett. See id.
at 32 (Sept. 15, 2016); Ex. 1D at 4 (Oct. 6, 2016); Ex. 1E at 4 (Nov. 3, 2016);
Ex. 1F at 1 (Dec. 1, 2016); Ex. 1G at 7 (missed appointment on Jan. 12, 2017),
16 (Jan. 26, 2017), 28 (Mar. 3, 2017), 35 (Mar. 9, 2017); Ex. 1H at 14 (Apr. 13,
2017), 83 (June 22, 2017).
On September 6, 2016, an "ankle-brachial index" test was conducted,
which did not reveal any "evidence of remarkable arterial vascular obstructive
disease to lower extremities." Ex. 1C at 9–10. On September 13, a family
nurse practitioner examined Mr. Babcock, increased his Tylenol #3 dosage for
"ongoing pain," updated his "Medical Duty Status," and re-issued him
crutches. Id. at 25; Ex. 1K at 1, 20.
On September 15, Mr. Babcock had an outside consultation with Dr.
Gary Ulrich, an orthopedic surgeon. Ex. 1C at 28. Dr. Ulrich evaluated his left
20

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 21 of 30 PageID #: 586

hip, which "involve[d] [an] exam and x-ray." Id. This exam noted a "good range
of motion of his hip," and the x-ray "reveal[ed] a non-cemented hip arthroplasty
in good position" with "no current prosthetic fractures noted." Id.
Mr. Babcock argues that a second opinion from Dr. Jafaar on June 29,
2017––concluding that there was loosening of Mr. Babcock's hip replacement––
showed that Dr. Ulrich (and thus the BOP physicians) "missed" the loosening
at this appointment. But that conclusion is not supported by the evidence.
First, Dr. Jafaar testified that he did not know when the x-ray he reviewed in
June 2017 had been taken, and Mr. Babcock has designated no evidence that
Dr. Jafaar looked at a previous x-ray instead of, for example, reading an x-ray
taken on the same day of his examination in June 2017. Moreover, Dr. Jafaar
testified that hip failure due to loosening or infection is "very rare" and that
loosening "can be very subtle to determine." Even if Dr. Ulrich and Dr. Jafaar
had reviewed the same x-ray image, Dr. Jafaar's belief that the x-ray showed
loosening of the replacement does not itself show that Dr. Ulrich "missed
something."
On October 14, Mr. Babcock received CT scans of his head and neck.
Ex. 1D at 7. The results of the CT scan of his head were "unremarkable,"
id. at 10, and the neck CT scan showed "reasonable alignment and position
without recurrent central or neural foraminal narrowing," id. at 13.
On November 28, PA Daugherty examined Mr. Babcock and, after he
requested "something stronger for pain" than Tylenol #3, PA Daugherty

21

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 22 of 30 PageID #: 587

increased Mr. Babcock's Elavil dosage but declined to prescribe him additional
narcotics. Ex. 1E at 16.
On December 6, Mr. Babcock had a neurosurgery consult for neck pain.
Ex. 1F at 5–8. The neurologist reviewed a new CT scan that showed arthritis in
his spine but no pinched nerves. Id. He did not recommend surgery. Id.
On December 14, Mr. Babcock had a pain-management consultation
with a doctor for steroid injections. Id. at 15–18, 23.
On January 4, 2017, Mr. Babcock met with a general surgeon about an
operation to remove the painful hernia that Dr. Trueblood had identified the
previous summer. Ex. 1G at 2, 11.
On January 13, Mr. Babcock met with PA Mata, and she reported that he
had a "normal gait." Id. at 8. PA Mata testified that she did not prescribe Mr.
Babcock a higher dose of Tylenol #3 because he was already on the maximum
dose.
On February 2, Mr. Babcock received a TENS unit 6 for pain. Ex. 1G at
20; see Ex. 1K at 1.
On February 15, Mr. Babcock had a CT scan of his left hip, which
showed that his hip replacement was "intact" and "in good alignment and
position" and that the "soft tissues around the left hip [we]re unremarkable."
Ex. 1G at 24–25. Both Dr. Trueblood and Dr. Goebke testified that a CT scan
is more sensitive and definitive than an x-ray.

PT Matchett testified that a TENS ("Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation") unit is an
electrical device that can be used to help treat pain.
6

22

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 23 of 30 PageID #: 588

On March 6, PA Mata examined Mr. Babcock at sick call, Ex. 1G at 32–
34, and PA Mata testified that she told Mr. Babcock that the CT scan showed
"no abnormalities with the hip joint." However, Mr. Babcock told her that the
"machine was broken and that the report [wa]s false." Ex. 1G at 32. On April
4, Mr. Babcock received a cervical epidural steroid injection for pain, primarily
neck pain. Ex. 1H at 1–2.
On April 11, Mr. Babcock had a chronic care appointment with Dr. King,
an osteopathic physician, who denied Mr. Babcock's request for "narcotics
(vicod[i]n)" because that kind of medication was only used for "acute pain," not
"chronic pain," and that the goal was "pain management . . . NOT [the] total
absence of pain." Ex. 1H at 8–10. Mr. Babcock "refused" Dr. King's
recommendation for an orthopedic consult and for other "chronic pain meds
such as Tegretol, etc.," and Dr. King recorded an "[o]bjective pain level" as a "03/10." Id.
On April 13, PA Mata examined Mr. Babcock and requested an
orthopedist consultation after Mr. Babcock told her he had changed his mind
about refusing a consult. Ex. 1H at 16–17.
On April 17, Mr. Babcock had surgery to repair his hernia. See id. at 19–
30, 36–42; Ex. 3 at 3. He received opioid pain medications after the procedure.
Ex. 1H at 26–30, 33.
On April 24, PA Mata examined Mr. Babcock and, after he asked why the
Tylenol #3 tablets were "being weaned off," she told him that narcotics are not
for long-term use. Id. at 45–48.
23

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 24 of 30 PageID #: 589

On May 24, Mr. Babcock had a follow-up appointment for his hernia
surgery. Id. at 65.
On May 30, Mr. Babcock had an electromyography ("EMG") test, and the
results were "normal" and did not show evidence of "neuropathy," "myopathic
process," or "denervation." Id. at 70; Ex. 1I at 45 (physician calling these
results "completely normal").
b. Conclusions of law
The evidence shows that Mr. Babcock received numerous pain
medications, a steroid injection, treatment with a TENS unit, crutches, medical
shoes, a lower tier and bunk pass, and physical therapy after his complaints of
hip pain. And he had numerous tests of his hip, including multiple x-rays, CT
scans, an EMG, and numerous consults with medical providers. The Court
does not credit Mr. Babcock's claim that numerous medical records are
inaccurate or that one x-ray machine was "outdated" and that another was
"broken." Mr. Babcock has offered no evidence, but only his unsupported
conclusions, to question the accuracy of these contemporaneously
documented, routine medical records. He also has not presented evidence
showing bias, motive, or some other reason to question the credibility of the
medical professionals who used those machines, interpreted the results, and
created the medical records.
And Mr. Babcock has not offered any evidence that a reasonable medical
provider needed to prescribe stronger narcotic pain medication. Indeed, PA
Mata testified that Mr. Babcock was on the maximum dose of Tylenol #3, and
24

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 25 of 30 PageID #: 590

Dr. Trueblood testified that Tylenol #3 is the "primary" narcotic prescribed at
the BOP and that Percocet (Oxycodone with Tylenol) is prescribed only for
"acute" surgeries and severe, acute pain. Moreover, Dr. Goebke testified that
"the worst thing that [doctors] can do is treat pain" with opioid narcotics
without an "associated diagnosis" because it could cause additional health
problems, including opioid addiction. To avoid these problems, Dr. Goebke
testified, the goal is to prescribe the lowest dosage of narcotics for the shortest
period. That's what the BOP medical providers did.
The Court therefore agrees with Dr. Goebke's assessment that Mr.
Babcock received "all of the resources he would expect" before June 29, 2017,
the first date with objective evidence of hip loosening. As a result, the BOP did
not breach its duty to provide reasonable medical care for this period.
5. Medical care after first objective evidence of hip loosening
Mr. Babcock argues that the BOP failed to alleviate his pain, even after
Dr. Jafaar (and later––on February 20, 2018––another physician) concluded
that his left hip replacement had loosened on June 29, 2017. He also points to
the government insurance's denial of coverage for revision surgery as evidence
of this negligence. The United States responds that it provided an appropriate
level of care. Dkt. 122 at 11.
a. Findings of fact
On June 29, 2017, Mr. Babcock had an appointment with Dr. Sami
Jaafar, an orthopedist. Ex. 1H at 88–90. After reviewing x-rays on file and
examining Mr. Babcock, Dr. Jafaar recorded that these complications were
25

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 26 of 30 PageID #: 591

"likely due to loosening" that would likely "require revision." Id. at 88–90 (note
stating that Dr. Jafaar "believe[d] that the cup may be loose," which could
require "major surgery again to fix," but that he "[w]ould need more testing to
confirm what is suspected"). This is the first medical record identifying hip
loosening.
Dr. Jaafar noted a recommendation for two workups (one for infection
and the other for loosening) but Mr. Babcock declined. See id. at 88–90. Mr.
Babcock testified that he did not want to have a medical hold placed on him
since he was going to be released soon and would rather get the surgery after
he left FCI Terre Haute. See id.
Mr. Babcock testified that Dr. Jaafar also told him that he had "been
right all along" and that the BOP "should have caught it before." But Dr.
Jafaar testified that he did not say that and "certainly would not have said
that."
On July 6, PA Mata examined Mr. Babcock, who reiterated that he did
"not want surgery done until" his release but that he did want "narcotic pain
medicine." Ex. 1I at 1. The record states that PA Mata told him that narcotics
were not proper "to treat chronic pain," and Mr. Babcock was "very upset that
he [wa]s not being given narcotics." Id. PA Mata testified that he said he only
"wanted more narcotic medicine" and "did not want surgery prior to his
release."

26

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 27 of 30 PageID #: 592

On July 18, PA Mata examined Mr. Babcock, renewed his Elavil
prescription, and referred him for a second epidural steroid injection. Ex. 1I at
5–6.
On August 1, PA Mata examined Mr. Babcock, who "refuse[d] any" of the
options she offered for his hip pain, "stating that they [we]re not going to help,"
and he refused a workup because he did "not want[] a medical hold." Id. at 21–
23. PA Mata testified that she had offered him multiple options to try to help
his chronic pain besides narcotics, but he was "not willing to try any of them."
On September 28, Mr. Babcock had a chronic care visit with a physician.
Ex. 1I at 45–49. Mr. Babcock requested to be placed back on Tylenol #3 for
"severe" hip pain, but the physician declined because he did "not appear to be
in that severe of pain" and was already taking Ibuprofen and Elavil. Id.
However, the physician prescribed Oxcarbazepine as an additional medication
for the pain. Id.
On November 3, x-rays revealed that Mr. Babcock had a bone spur on
his left heel but his foot was otherwise "unremarkable," and his left knee had
"[v]ery minimal osteoarthritis" but was otherwise "unremarkable." Ex. 1J at 1–
2.
On November 5, Mr. Babcock received another epidural steroid injection.
Id. at 7.
On November 19, PA Mata examined Mr. Babcock, and he requested
another steroid injection. Id. at 18.

27

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 28 of 30 PageID #: 593

On December 14, Mr. Babcock transferred from FCI Terre Haute to a
residential reentry center in St. Louis. Id. at 38; see Ex. 6 at 122. He testified
that, at this facility, he had a first-floor room without bunk beds and a "really
nice" handicap-accessible bathroom with rails.
On February 20, 2018, Mr. Babcock had another x-ray of his hips done,
which was compared to an x-ray done on March 9, 2016. Ex. 4 at 7–9. This
showed that there was a "failed acetabular component," which was "likely [the]
source of his hip pain." Id. Although the stem "was in good position without
loosening," the "cup ha[d] obviously loosened," which would "require revision
before he gets any relief of pain." Id. at 9.
Mr. Babcock was scheduled for a left-hip revision in May, but that
surgery was cancelled "when his state funded insurance denied the surgery."
Id. at 21–22; see id. at 29 ("Surgery denied per BOP" on April 24, 2018).
Mr. Babcock was released from BOP custody on June 6, 2018. See id. at
21. He later received surgery on his left hip after his release later that June.
See dkt. 125 at 1–2 (Stipulation ¶ 7).
b. Conclusions of law
Based on this evidence, the BOP acted reasonably in providing Mr.
Babcock medical care during this period. Mr. Babcock refused to proceed with
surgery to fix his hip replacement from June 29, 2017, through at least
February 20, 2018. See Ex. 1H at 89; Ex. 1I at 1. And he has not offered
evidence that a reasonable physician was required to prescribe narcotic pain
medications during this time. Indeed, Mr. Babcock either received or was
28

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 29 of 30 PageID #: 594

offered alternative pain treatments through this period. See Ex. 1I at 5–6
(Elavil); Ex. 1J at 7 (epidural steroid injection), 18 (Oxcarbmazepine).
Moreover, although Mr. Babcock's insurance denied coverage surgery on April
24, 2018, see Ex. 4 at 21–22, 29, Mr. Babcock has not offered details about
that coverage refusal or the BOP's insurance-coverage obligations when an
inmate is at a residential reentry center. Indeed, Mr. Babcock testified that he
does not know why coverage was denied for the surgery. Regardless, Mr.
Babcock was released from BOP custody just over a month later, at which
point he was free to––and did––obtain the hip revision surgery on his own.
Because the BOP provided Mr. Babcock with reasonable medical care, it did
not breach its duty to him for this period. See Brock, 727 Fed. App'x at 860.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons described above, Mr. Babcock has not shown that the
BOP was negligent. Therefore, he is not entitled to relief under the FTCA.
Final judgment shall issue by separate entry.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 8/19/2021

29

Case 2:17-cv-00033-JPH-MJD Document 132 Filed 08/19/21 Page 30 of 30 PageID #: 595

Distribution:
EUGENE RAY BABCOCK
113 Clover Street
Moro, IL 62067
Kathleen L. Matsoukas
BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
Kelly Rota
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDI
[e-mail]
Allison Marie Scarlott
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Julian Clifford Wierenga
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
Shelese M. Woods
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]

30