Woollard v. Corizon Health Inc. et al
Filing
86
OPINION AND ORDER denying 81 Motion for Reconsideration re 80 Order Adopting Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
Case 2:18-cv-11529-PDB-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.868 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Cory Woollard
Case No. 18-cv-11529
Plaintiff,
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
v.
Corizon Health, Inc., Rickey Coleman,
and Rosilyn Jindal
Defendant.
________________________________/
Anthony P. Patti
United States Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT RICKEY COLEMAN,
D.O.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On May 17, 2021 Defendant Rickey Coleman, D.O., filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on this Court’s Order Rejecting Defendant Coleman’s Second
Objection Regarding the Magistrate Judge’s Ruling with Regard to Plaintiff’s
Critical Need for Foam Soap. (ECF No. 81.) Plaintiff Woollard filed a Response
on June 3, 2021. (ECF No. 83.)
Motions for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(g)(1) when the moving party to shows (1) a “palpable defect,” (2) that misled
the court and the parties, and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a different
disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3). A “palpable defect” is a defect
1
Case 2:18-cv-11529-PDB-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.869 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 4
which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Mich. Dep't of Treasury
v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citations omitted).
Yet motions for reconsideration should not be granted when they “merely present
the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3). Here, the Court has already ruled on the
issues raised by the Defendant, and the Court is not persuaded that the Defendant
has shown a palpable defect, the correction of which would lead to a different
outcome.
Defendant Coleman challenges both the subjective and objective
components of deliberate indifference. Regarding the subjective component, the
evidence shows a reasonable juror could find that Dr. Coleman “subjectively
perceived facts from which to infer substantial risk to the prisoner, that he did in
fact draw the inference, and that he then disregarded that risk” by failing to take
reasonable measures to abate it. Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 703 (6th Cir.
2001) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
The AMCO request in which Dr. Coleman deferred the medical
accommodation for foam soap notes that the Plaintiff suffers from wrist drop in his
right hand and forearm atrophy, and that Plaintiff “[u]ses foam soap for cleansing.”
(ECF No. 72 PageID.655.) Defendant Coleman states in his affidavit that “the only
‘reason’ stated was because Mr. Woollard needs foam soap to ‘feel independent,’ “
2
Case 2:18-cv-11529-PDB-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.870 Filed 08/19/21 Page 3 of 4
and that “Plaintiff has full use of his upper body and extremities.” (Affidavit of
Rickey Coleman, D.O., ECF No. 81-1 ¶¶ 7, 8.) These statements are inconsistent
with the information provided in the AMCO request that was before Dr. Coleman
when he deferred the Plaintiff’s medical order for foam soap, which stated that the
Plaintiff used foam soap for cleansing and noted the Plaintiff’s wrist drop and
forearm atrophy.
On February 8, 2018 Woollard complained to a nurse of his inability to
cleanse himself without foam soap “since he cannot use the toilet, has no sink in
his cell, the bar of soap is no help.” (ECF No. 72 PageID.692) On December 4,
2018, PA Jindal submitted another AMCO request to Dr. Coleman where Jindal
noted that:
Patient is a paraplegic with right radial neuropath,
decreased RUE [right upper extremity] strength. Has to
digitally stimulate bowel movements, and unable to
transfer to commode/toilet to have bowel movements, due
to upper extremity weakness and does so on his bed. Often
incontinent of feces.
(ECF No. 72 PageID.719.)
This evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to find that Dr. Coleman had
the necessary information to infer a substantial risk to the Plaintiff and failed to act.
Defendant’s arguments regarding the subjective component are rejected.
Regarding the objective component, Sixth Circuit has held that “when an
inmate has received on-going treatment for his condition and claims that this
3
Case 2:18-cv-11529-PDB-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.871 Filed 08/19/21 Page 4 of 4
treatment was inadequate, the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim
requires a showing of care ‘so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to
shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.’ ” Rhinehart v.
Scutt, 894 F.3d 721, 737 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Miller v. Calhoun Cty., 408 F.3d
803, 819 (6th Cir. 2005)). Reasonable jurors could find that Dr. Coleman’s refusal
to provide a viable means for the Plaintiff to cleanse himself, given that he needs to
digitally stimulate his bowel movements, “shocks the conscience.” As this Court
held, “[s]imply put, bar soap is not a reasonable substitute.” (Order Adopting
R&R, ECF No. 80 PageID.817.)
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 81) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Paul D. Borman
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
Dated: August 19, 2021
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?