Polk v. Sabbatine et al

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Polk's 45 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on December 12, 2012. (AWD)cc: COR,Pla via US Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-018-JBC
ROBERT LEE POLK,
V.

PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DONNA SADLER, M.D.,

DEFENDANT.
**********

This matter is before the court on Robert Lee Polk’s pro se motion for
summary judgment (R. 49). Polk asserts that he is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law based on his factual assertions regarding the alleged medical negligence that
resulted in two of his toes being amputated in August 2011. The court will deny
the motion because genuine disputes of material fact exist in this case that
preclude summary judgment in Polk’s favor.
Polk was incarcerated in the Fayette County Detention Center in Lexington,
Kentucky, when he sustained an injury to his left foot in August 2011. That injury
eventually required the amputation of two toes from his left foot. Polk asserts that
but for Dr. Sadler’s medical negligence, his injury would have been treated sooner,
preventing the need for amputation. Though a plaintiff in a medical malpractice
suit generally must present expert testimony as to the applicable standard of care
and that a violation of that standard was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s
injury, see Baylis v. Lourdes Hospital, Inc., 805 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Ky. 1991);
Jarboe v. Harting, 397 S.W.2d 775, 778 (Ky. 1965), Polk argues that the
1

treatment he received was such an obvious violation of the standard of care that
expert testimony is unnecessary in light of the evidence found in Dr. Sadler’s
medical notes.
Without reaching the issue of whether Polk must necessarily present expert
testimony to prove his case, Polk has not met his burden to prove that no genuine
dispute of material fact exists in this case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Viewing the evidence and drawing all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Dr. Sadler, the non-movant, see
Blackmore v. Kalamazoo Co., 390 F.3d 890, 895 (6th Cir. 2004), genuine disputes
of material fact exist in this case including, but not limited to, the applicable
standard of care and skill under the circumstances and whether the alleged
negligence actually and legally caused Polk’s injuries. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Polk’s motion for summary judgment (R. 45) is DENIED.

Signed on December 12, 2012

2