Bright v. Wexford Health

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 4/12/2017. (c/m 4/13/07 bas, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
WILLIAM BRIGHT, #413-592
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION NO. JFM-16-2528

v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.
DR. ROBUSTIANO BARRERA
KIMBERL Y MARTIN
MARIA LEWIS
CARLA BUCK
TIFF ANY BENNETT
DR. ROY CARLS
STEPHEN RYAN
LLOYD HOTT
BEVERL Y McLAUGHLIN
DENNIS MARTIN
BRENDA REESE
Defendants

MEMORANDUM
William

Bright,

a self-represented

litigant

formerly

Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland ("WCI"),
42 U.S.C.

S

I

incarcerated

at the Western

filed a civil rights complaint under

1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"),2 as supplemented, claiming:

(l) he has been denied heart and blood pressure medications by defendants Barrera, Lewis,
Kimberly Martin and Carla Buck; (2) defendant Carls has failed to remove a broken orthopedic

I

Bright has been released from custody and resides in Hyattsville, Maryland.

ECF 59.

The ADA was enacted in 1990 "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of
discrimination against individuals with disabilities," 42 U.S.C. S 12101(b)(I), and "to provide clear, strong,
consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities." Id. S 1210 I(b )(2).
Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities, including "any State or local government" and "any department,
agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government," id. S 12131 (I),
from discriminating "by reason of' disability against a "qualified individual with a disability."
Id. S 12132.
Although Bright references the ADA in his complaint based on his "mental disability" (ECF I at p. 5), the court
finds no nexus between his alleged mental disability and the health care provided by prison medical personnel.
2

screw; (3) a treatment rendered by defendants Ryan and Hott caused severe burns that have
become infected; (4) defendant Reese will not permit medical staff to provide him antibiotics to
fight the infection; and (5) defendant McLaughlin prescribed medication that caused an allergic
reaction. ECF NO.1 at 1-5 and ECF NO.3 at p. 3.3
Defendants Carls, Ryan, Lott, McLaughlin, Dennis Martin, and Wexford Health Sources,
Inc. were dismissed on July 28, 2016.

ECF 6.

The remaining defendants, Barrera, Lewis,

Kimberly Martin, Buck, and Reese, now seek to dismiss the case or, alternatively, move for
summary judgment.

ECF 38. Bright opposes the dispositive motion (ECF 44), and defendants

have filed a reply to the opposition response.4

ECF 49. After review of the papers filed, the

court finds a hearing on the pending matters unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016).
Standard of Review
Because matters outside the pleadings are presented in defendants dispositive motion, it
shall be considered a motion for summary judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Summary Judgment

is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) which provides that:
The court shall grant summary judgment 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.
The Supreme Court has clarified that this does not mean that any factual dispute will
defeat the motion:
By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of
some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an
otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.

3

This opinion references the pagination assigned by the court's electronic docketing system.

Defendants also move to strike Bright's pleadings ECF 6]-63, as they do not conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. ]5, and
each was filed without either the opposing party's consent or leave to amend granted by this court. ECF 64. The
pleadings shall be stricken.
4

2

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original).
"The party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment 'may not rest
upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,' but rather must 'set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc.,
346 F.3d 514, 525 (4th Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). The
court should "view the evidence in the light most favorable to ...

the nonmovant, and draw all

inferences in her favor without weighing the evidence or assessing the witness' credibility."
Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir. 2002). The court
must, however, also abide by the "affirmative obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually
unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial." Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 526 (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Drewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774,778-79

(4th Cir. 1993), and

citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986)).
Background
The medical defendants include Registered Nurses Kimberly Martin, Carl Buck, Tiffany
Bennett, and Brenda Reese; Licensed Practical Nurse Maria Lewis; and Dr. Robustiano Barrera.
As previously noted, Bright alleges that he was denied heart and blood pressure medications by
Barrera, Lewis, Martin, and Carla Buck between December 4, 2015 and December 18, 2015.
Bright also alleges that Reese instructed nursing staff to deny him antibiotics to fight the
infection allegedly suffered due to bums incurred during post-surgical physical therapy.

Bright

seeks $250,000,000.00 in damages for alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Analysis
The Eighth Amendment prohibits "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" by virtue
of its guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.
3

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173

(1976).

"Scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment is not limited to those punishments authorized

by statute and imposed by a criminal judgment."

De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F. 3d 630,633 (4th

Cir. 2003) citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S.294, 297 (1991).

In order to state an Eighth

Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the actions of the
defendants or their failure to act amounted to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). "Deliberate indifference is a very high standard
- a showing of mere negligence will not meet it. ...

(T)he Constitution is designed to deal with

deprivations of rights, not errors in judgments, even though such errors may have unfortunate
consequences ... To lower this threshold would thrust federal courts into the daily practices of
local police departments."

Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695- 96 (4th Cir. 1999).

Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need requires proof that, objectively, the
prisoner plaintiff was suffering from a serious medical need and that, subjectively, the prison
staff were aware of the need for medical attention but failed to either provide it or ensure the
needed care was available. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Objectively, the
medical condition at issue must be serious.

See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)

(there is no expectation that prisoners will be provided with unqualified access to health care).
Proof of an objectively serious medical condition, however, does not end the inquiry.
The subjective component requires "subjective recklessness" in the face of the serious
medical condition.

See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 839- 40. "True subjective recklessness requires

knowledge both of the general risk, and also that the conduct is inappropriate in light of that
risk." Rich v. Bruce, 129 F. 3d 336, 340 n. 2 (4th Cir. 1997). "Actual knowledge or awareness
on the part of the alleged inflicter ...

becomes essential to proof of deliberate indifference

'because prison officials who lacked knowledge of a risk cannot be said to have inflicted

4

punishment.'''

Brice v. Virginia Beach Correctional Center, 58 F. 3d 101, 105 (4th Cir. 1995)

quoting Farmer 511 U.S. at 844. If the requisite subjective knowledge is established, an official
may avoid liability "if [he] responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm was not ultimately
averted. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844. Reasonableness of the actions taken must be judged in
light of the risk the defendant actually knew at the time. See Brown v. Harris, 240 F. 3d 383,
390 (4th Cir. 2000); citing Liebe v. Norton, 157 F. 3d 574, 577 (8th Cir. 1998) (focus must be on
precautions actually taken in light of suicide risk, not those that could have been taken).
The uncontroverted

medical recordS demonstrates that Bright, who is in his late 40s,

received constitutionally adequate medical care and that his own misconduct made delivery of
that care difficult for prison health care providers. Bright's medical history includes diabetes,
hypertension, and chronic ankle pain stemming from a 2006 fracture. While incarcerated, Bright
was seen regularly in the hypertension chronic care clinic and was prescribed
N orvasc,
medical

7

'18
an d L"
Il1ISOpn.
recommendations,

Medical providers
and Bright

found him routinely

was often verbally

Minoxidil.6

non-compliant

combative,

aggressIve,

with
and

uncooperative toward his treating medical providers. Ban"eITaAff. at,-r 6.
On September 8, 2015, Bright's three blood pressure medications, Minoxidil, Norvasc
and Lisinopril, were renewed through December 8, 2015.

lei..'l

7. Bright received these

medications through December 8, 2015, when they expired. lei.

Relevant medical records are filed at ECF 40. Dr. Banera's Affidavit. which incorporates those records. is found
at ECF 38-5.

5

6

Minoxidil is used to treat hypertension.

See https://www.dlUgs.com/cdi/minoxidil.htmL

7

Norvasc also is used to treat hypertension.

8

Lisinopril a Iso

See https:!/\'vww.drugs.com/norvasc.html.

is used to treat hypertension.

See https//www.drugs.com/lisinopri

5

l.html.

On December

8, 2015, Bright

was to be seen by Vincent Siracusano,

M.D. for a

scheduled mental health medication management visit, but refused to attend the appointment.
Jd.. ~ 8.

One day later, on December 9, 2015, he was to be seen by Registered

Practitioner
prescriptions.
completed.

Beverly Mclaughlin,

Nurse

a chronic care provider who could review and renew his

Again, he refused to attend the visit and a release of responsibility
Bright was rescheduled to be seen in one month. Jd,

f()m1

wa"

~19.

On December 11, 2015, Bright filed a sick call slip, but made no mention that he was
not receiving his hypertension

medications.

ld.. ~ 11. On December

13, 2015, he stopped

Registered Nurse Heather Richie during her segregation housing rounds to report that he was
not receiving hi s hypertension
his chronic

medications.

care appointment on December

Bright was reminded

9, 2015, but reported that he did not refuse, but

rather corrections staff did not bring him to his medical visit.
medications
hypertension

of his refusal to attend

He was reassured

that his

would be renewed and repOlied no adverse side effects from not receiving
medication.

On December
was not receiving

Jd., ~ 10.

13, 2015, Bright
his hypertension

he told

Registered

received

hypertension

his

Nurse

filed a sick call slip informing

medications.

ld. ~ 13.

medical staff that

On December

14, 2015,

Katrina Opel during her medical rounds that he had not

medications

111

mne days, but repOlted no adverse e1fects. ref.

Opel

informed the Nurse Manager. ld
On December
medications

15, 2015,9 Bright's chart was updated to ret1ect that hypertension

were renewed by Dr. Barrera. Id.,

'1 14. He began

receiving

the medications

Dr. Barrera's Affidavit lists this date as December 15, 2016. ECF 38-5 at p. 4, ~ 14. Based on the medical record,
ECF 40 at p. 17, it is apparent that the December 15,2016 date is a typographical error. Medications were renewed
on December 15, 2015.

9

6

on December

18,2015.

ld. Neither Bright's

complaint

nor his medical

record reflect

that he suffered actual injury as a result of the delay in renewing these medications.
Bright's claim regarding treatment with antibiotics fares no better.

On June 17, 2016,

he was seen by Registered Nurse Tara Cottrell complaining of burns on his left foot caused by
a TENS unit applied during a post-surgical

physical therapy session earlier that day.IO

Cottrell's nurse manager instructed that silvadenell cream be applied to the area and covered
with nonstick pads and gauze wrap. These instructions were followed, and Bright was given
ibuprofen and an ice pack. ld,

'1 16.

On June 19, 2016, Bright

refused to be seen for his scheduled wound care visit. Ed..

~ 17. Between June 20, 2016 and July 25,2016,
his leg wound. Id.,

,! 18.

Bright was seen 32 times for treatment of

The wound never appeared infected and was healing appropriately.

Ed
On July 3, 2016, Bright was seen by Registered Nurse Burnice Steuber for a wound care
visit. Id, ~ 19.

Despite his demands, he was not provided

that he was not using Bactrim
Steuber

informed

Barrera

ordered

Dr. Barrera
Bright

12

internet access.

He reported

on his wound, because he did not think it would work.
that the wound

be given

Augmentin,13

was draining

more than normal,

an antibiotic,

for 14 days.

and

Due to

10 A TENS device, or transcutaneous
electrical nerve stimulator, is used to stimulate pulses across the skin and along
nerve strands to reduce pain signals from reaching the brain. It also helps the body produce higher levels of its own
natural painkillers known as endorphins and helps prevent muscle atrophy. See http://www.tensunits.com/.

11 Si1vadene is an antimicrobial
medication used to topi::ally treat wounds. See
https:i!www.druqs.comipro!silvadene.htm1.
12
Bactrim is a topica I antibiotic cream used to treat wounds. St't! https:!/\vww.druqs.com/bactrirn.htm!.
Bright \vas prescribed Bactrim on March 14.2016 to assist in the healing of his surgica I leg wounds.

13 Augmentin is an oral penicillin antibiotic.
See https://www.drugs.com!search.php?searchterm-augm

entin& a-I.

7

r-----------------------------------------

---------------

•

previous

non-compliance,

Barrera ordered the antibiotic

pills to ensure they were taken.

be observed

while taking the

Id.

On July 17,2016, the course of medication was completed. lei.. ~ 20. On July 19,2016,
Bright was seen by Martin and Barrera for stitch removal unrelated to his foot wound.

The

foot wound was also examined, showing only a small amount of drainage and no odor. The
area was cleaned and dressing applied, and a second two-week regimen of Augmentin was
prescribed. Id, ~21.
On August 2, 2016, Bright
August 4,2016,

received his last dose of Augmentin.

lei.. ~ 23. On

he was seen by Nurse Practitioner Peggy Mahler for wound care. Id.. ~ 24.

His dressing was not changed because Mahler lacked sufficient supplies to apply new dressing.
Bright was told his wound would take longer to heal due to his diabetes and was advised that
more antibiotics would not be given without need, because prolonged
antibiotics reduces their eflicacy.

administration

of

Id. Bright continued to be seen regularly for wound care

at least through August 25, 2016, the date of the most recent medical record provided by
defendants. Id.. ~ 25.
Bright counters defendants' version of events with the fact that he never signed a release
of responsibility

and that defendants

have taken advantage

of his mental and emotional

disabilities. ECF 44 at 3-5. He also seeks to expand his lawsuit to name additional correctional
personnel whom he accuses of stealing his medical records. Id. at p. 4. None of these arguments
is sufficient to change the outcome of this case. Bright's own conduct facilitated the brief delay
in renewal of his blood pressure medications, and Bright cannot attribute actual injury as a result.
The recalcitrance in refusing to apply antibiotic cream, combined with Bright's diabetes, may
have impeded the healing of his foot wound, which defendants then treated successfully with

8

oral antibiotics.

No violation of the Eighth Amendment is rapparent from the uncontroverted

record, and defendants' motion for summary judgment shall be granted.
Conclusion
A separate order implementing the content of this memorandum follows.

I~~

@d/Y
Date

JjPrederick Motz
United States District Judge

['..;)

c":

-J

~~
-J(j)
:;;-, ..

=

l::tl

"<
C")

\

;;::;r-

:l:!'"

:::0

\,
I
i

~rr'\
a:;AJ

:p:::~

C;C?
::r.::;,

W

I

C)""''l;'~~

t''f1

,••..
\ r'/,

c:
-l

-<

9

;:'''!.le

-.1 {JJ •.•'1
,
~'l-I-,

~"1 r'"
:::0

om
_.~t:J

-~;-)

:::::l

v

..."

:;"i., ,::::;

IJ

:J:
N

~.•..

0

,;;,l"

-'9