Nathan v. Wexford Health Care Co. et al

Filing 47

ORDER granting 43 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on 4/4/2013 (KW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
DAYRAL T. NATHAN

PLAINTIFF

V.

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-138-MTP

DR. RONALD WOODALL

DEFENDANT

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [43].
Having considered the case record and applicable law, the Court finds that the Defendant’s
motion is well taken and will be granted for the reasons provided below.
Case Background
Plaintiff Dayral T. Nathan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court on July 6, 2011. Nathan is a post-conviction inmate
in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). He is currently housed
at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi. His claims in this lawsuit arise
from events which occurred while he was incarcerated at South Mississippi Correctional Institute
(“SMCI”) in Leakesville, Mississippi. Nathan asserts that Dr. Ronald Woodall denied him
adequate medical care and acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs while he was
housed at SMCI.1
The Plaintiff was previously diagnosed with a bulged disc, bone fragments, and arthritis.
Doc. [43-3] at 17:22-23. He was prescribed Flexeril, Pamelor, and Ultram to treat these

1

Nathan originally named Wexford Health Care Company as a defendant in this case, but
voluntarily dismissed his claims against Wexford at the omnibus hearing. See Order [29]
1

conditions.2 Id. at 12:2-4; Doc [46] at 414. Nathan also received injections of Toradol for his
back pain. Doc. [43-3] at 14:23-15:7. He later started seeing Dr. McCleave who took him off
the former medications and gave him Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Tylenol, Tegretol, and other
medications. Id. 12:11-22; Doc. [46-1] at 145-146, 235-236. Nathan advised Dr. McCleave that
the new medications were harming him, but she allegedly ignored his complaints. Doc. [43-3] at
13:1-9. After his prescriptions for the new medications expired, Nathan put in a request for a
doctor’s visit and, at that point, he started seeing Dr. Woodall. Id. at 16:5-10.
According to the Plaintiff, Dr. Woodall took him off the medications Dr. McCleave had
prescribed and began a new treatment regime which included Toradol injections. Id. at 14:2016:2. However, Nathan asserts that he sometimes had to wait 15 to 20 days to get a Toradol
injection after having completed a sick call request. Id. at 14:23-15:25. Nathan claims that Dr.
Woodall also prescribed Baclofen, a muscle relaxer, to him but that he often had to wait 30 to 60
days before receiving a refill of the medication. Id. at 16:19-23.
In this lawsuit, Nathan claims that Dr. Woodall acted with deliberate indifference when
he delayed in responding to sick call requests and took him off certain medications, which
caused the Plaintiff to suffer back and leg pain. Id. at 17:16-20. Nathan does not know what is
wrong with his back or legs, but maintains that he wants to be given proper treatment for his
pain. Id. at 11:1-7. Nathan further claims that Dr. Woodall intentionally withheld and/ or
delayed him access to his medications. Id. at 19:4-7.
At this time, Dr. Woodall seeks summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claims. The

2

The Plaintiff claims that Frank McGrew was the medical doctor who prescribed Flexeril,
Pamelor, and Ultran to him; however, the Defendant identifies McGrew as a physician’s
assistant in his sworn affidavit. Doc. [43-2] at 2.
2

Defendant argues that judgment should be entered in his favor because he did not violate the
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Dr. Woodall asserts that no reasonable juror could conclude that
he acted with deliberate indifference because he provided Nathan with regular and adequate
medical treatment. The Plaintiff has not responded to the summary judgment motion and the
time to do so has long since expired. Therefore, the Court will now evaluate the merits of the
motion and determine whether it should be granted based on the record before it.
Discussion
I.

Summary Judgment
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) “mandates the entry of summary

judgment...against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at
trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The moving party bears burden of
“informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the
record evidence] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
Id. at 323. Once the moving party meets its burden, the nonmoving party must then “come
forward with specific facts showing a genuine factual issue for trial.” Harris ex rel. Harris v.
Pontotoc Cnty. Sch. Dist., 635 F.3d 685, 690 (5th Cir. 2011).
When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must consider the record
evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor. Paz v. Brush
Engineered Materials, Inc., 555 F.3d 383, 391 (5th Cir. 2009). However, in the absence of
proof, the Court will not assume that the nonmoving party could have proved the necessary facts.
Id.

3

II.

Denial of Medical Treatment
To establish a claim for denial of medical treatment under § 1983, “a prisoner must allege

acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs” because “only such indifference [] can offend ‘evolving standards of decency’ in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50
L.Ed. 2d 251 (1976). “[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth
Amendment...unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or
safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 829, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed. 2d 811 (1970). The
official must have known that an inmate faced “a substantial risk of serious harm and
disregard[ed] that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. If the risk
is obvious, the official’s knowledge of that risk may be inferred. Id. at 837; Easter v. Powell,
467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006).
A prisoner’s mere disagreement with medical treatment does not state a valid claim for
deliberate indifference. Castilla v. July, 470 F. App’x 358, 359 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Norton v.
Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997)). Instead, a prisoner must be able to demonstrate
that officials “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly,
or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious
medical needs.” Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir.1985).
According to the medical records in this case, Dr. Woodall treated Nathan for back and/
or leg pain in November 2009, November 2010, December 2010, and February 2011. Dr.
Woodall also treated Nathan for other health concerns unrelated to the claims in this lawsuit. In
addition, Nathan was treated by other doctors and medical staff during his incarceration at

4

SMCI.
On November 24, 2009, Dr. Woodall evaluated Nathan regarding his complaints of back
pain, leg pain, and stiffness. Doc. [46] at 375-377. Dr. Woodall noted that Nathan had chronic
back pain with lumbar disc disease and appeared to be in no acute distress. Id. He prescribed 10
milligrams of Baclofen twice daily and 15 milligrams of Mobic once daily. Id. Baclofen was
used to treat anti spasm symptoms and Mobic was used to treat arthritis. Woodall Affidavit [432] at 3. When Dr. Woodall saw Nathan for a chronic care evaluation concerning his diabetes and
hypertension on December 2, 2009, the Plaintiff was taking Baclofen, Mobic, and Ibuprofen, all
of which treat lower back pain. Id.
On November 5, 2010, Dr. Woodall evaluated Nathan in response to his request for an
injection of back pain medication. Doc. [46-2] at 19. Dr. Woodall ordered that Nathan take 10
milligrams of Baclofen twice daily. Id. at 20. Nathan also received injections of Solumendrol
and Toradol for his back pain that day. Id.; Woodall Affidavit [43-2] at 3.
On December 8, 2010, Dr. Woodall met with the Plaintiff in response to his complaints
of chest pain, headaches, and back pain. Doc. [46-2] at 99. Dr. Woodall noted that the Plaintiff
appeared to be well nourished and in no acute distress. Id. Nathan was also seen by Nurse
Practitioner Gwendolyn Woodland in December 2010, for his complaints of back pain. Id. at
139. Nurse Woodland’s overall assessment was that Nathan had a muscle sprain. Id. at 140.
Nathan was ordered to take Extra Strength Tylenol and Ketorolac, use analgesic balm, and
receive an injection of Toradol. Id. at 140-142.
On February 23, 2011, Dr. Woodall submitted an MDOC Specialty Care Consultation
Request for a CT scan of the Plaintiff’ lumbar spine. Id. at 284. Dr. Woodall noted that the

5

Plaintiff had been suffering from chronic lower back pain and that his X-ray results indicated a
decreased disc height. Id. Dr. Tom Lehman, the site medical director, responded to the request
by asking that Dr. Woodall provide additional information concerning whether Nathan suffered
from any neurological deficits or radiculopathy. Id. at 284-285. On March 4, 2011, Nathan was
transferred from SMCI to Central Mississippi Correctional Facility (“CMCF”). Id. at 286. As
the Plaintiff had been transferred to another facility, Dr. Woodall did not provide the requested
information and on March 28, 2011, Dr. Lehman advised that the consultation request could not
move forward. Id. at 285.
In his sworn affidavit, Dr. Woodall testified that he never ignored any of Nathan’s
complaints and that he prescribed what he believed to be the appropriate medical treatment for
the Plaintiff’s condition. Woodall Affidavit [43-2] at 5. Dr. Woodall also testified that none of
the Plaintiff’s complaints or medical records demonstrated that his back condition constituted a
substantial risk to his health or that his back pain was not being addressed. Id. Dr. Woodall
further testified that the Plaintiff “consistently received medical treatment for his complaints of
back pain, including substantial pharmacological treatment.” Id.
Based on the evidence in the record, the Plaintiff cannot establish that Dr. Woodall was
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Indeed, the Plaintiff’s claim amounts to nothing
more than a disagreement with the course of treatment Dr. Woodall provided on the four
occasions he saw Nathan for back and/ or leg pain.
While the Plaintiff may disagree with Dr. Woodall’s decision to take him off certain
medications, disagreement alone does not constitute deliberate indifference. The record shows
that Dr. Woodall prescribed and the Plaintiff took medications to treat back pain, his chief

6

complaint, at all times alleged in this lawsuit. Thus, it appears the Plaintiff’s argument is that
Dr. Woodall was deliberately indifferent when he chose to not prescribe medications other
doctors had chosen for back pain. Though the Plaintiff may have preferred certain medications
to others, he is not guaranteed preferred medications or even preferred treatment by the
Constitution.3
The record establishes that Dr. Woodall responded to the Plaintiff’s sick call requests,
prescribed medications to him, and requested that an outside physician evaluate his spine.
Shortly after the request for outside treatment was submitted, Nathan was transferred to another
facility and was no longer under Dr. Woodall’s care. There is no evidence showing that Dr.
Woodall refused to treat the Plaintiff, intentionally provided incorrect treatment to him, or
engaged in other similar conduct evincing deliberate indifference. To the contrary, the evidence
shows that Dr. Woodall responded to the Plaintiff’s complaints, prescribed medications to treat
his pain, and sought outside treatment for his condition.
As to the claim for delayed treatment, the record shows that Dr. Woodall responded
promptly to the Plaintiff’s complaints. Nathan submitted a sick call request for a shot of back
pain medication on October 27, 2010. Doc. [46-2] at 19. He was seen by Dr. Woodall on
November 5, 2010. Id. Nathan submitted another sick call request on November 29, 2010, and
was seen by Dr. Woodall on December 8, 2010. Id. at 99. According to Nathan’s medical
records, he received continued treatment from Dr. Woodall and other medical staff at SMCI until
he was transferred out of Dr. Woodall’s care in March 2011. Thus, any delay Nathan may have

3

See Barksdale v. King, 699 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1983) (“The Constitution does not
command that inmates be given the kind of medical attention that judges would wish to have for
themselves, nor the therapy that Medicare and Medicaid provides for the aged or needy”).
7

experienced was minimal and does not constitute deliberate indifference.
In addition to Dr. Woodall’s treatment of Nathan, the record contains more than 1,200
pages of the extensive medical treatment the Plaintiff received during his incarceration. Nathan
has not shown that he faced a substantial risk of harm or that Dr. Woodall knew such a risk
existed. Therefore, having reviewed the medical records and the other evidence in this case, the
Court finds that the Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference must fail.
Based on the above analysis, summary judgment should be granted in favor of Dr.
Woodall. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant’s motion [43] is granted. A separate
judgment will be entered this day pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
SO ORDERED, this the 4th day of April, 2013.
/s/MICHAEL T. PARKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8