Porretti v. Dzurenda et al

Filing 130

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants arrange and pay for two in-person medical evaluation of Plaintiff by 6/14/2019. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 111 Plaintiff's Motion, which the Court construes as a request that the Court decline to consider Defendants' proposed medical examiner, is DENIED. See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 5/8/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

WAYNE A. PORRETTI,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:17-cv-01745-RFB-CWH

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
DZURENDA, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated in the Nevada Department of Corrections who alleges

14

that he is being denied necessary anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medication and, as a result, is

15

suffering from depression, paranoia, delusions, and hearing voices. On April 12, 2019, the Court

16

issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and instructing Defendants

17

to provide Plaintiff a medical evaluation to assess Plaintiff’s current medical condition and needs.

18

ECF No. 106.

19

The parties dispute which medical professional should conduct the evaluation. Plaintiff

20

has argued that Norton Roitman, M.D., is an appropriate evaluator based on his treatment history

21

with Plaintiff. Defendants have expressed their preference to provide a separate evaluator

22

contracted with the prison with no treating history of Plaintiff. The Court deferred ruling on this

23

issue in its April 12, 2019 order to provide Defendants an opportunity to submit the name of an

24

alternative evaluating physician. On April 19, 2019, Defendants proposed that the evaluation be

25

performed by Wade F. Exum, M.D., a contracted physiatrist who examines and treats patients at

26

Northern Nevada Correctional Center. ECF No. 113.

27

The Court finds no need to hold a hearing at this time to determine which provider will

28

conduct Plaintiff’s medical examination. The Court has found, and continues to find, that Dr.

1

Roitman is a credible physician with an established record as a medical expert with this Court.

2

The Court does not find that Dr. Roitman is biased by his treatment history with Plaintiff; in fact,

3

the Court finds this treatment history to be an asset necessary to further the Court’s goal of

4

determining Plaintiff’s medical needs at this time. However, the Court additionally finds that it is

5

both helpful and necessary for Plaintiff to be evaluated in-person by a credible physiatrist

6

contracted with Defendants, as Defendants are obligated to oversee Plaintiff’s ongoing care. The

7

Court therefore determines that its injunctive relief will take the form of two in-person medical

8

evaluations of Plaintiff, one conducted by Dr. Roitman and one conducted by Dr. Exum.

9

The Court reiterates its finding, as detailed in its April 12, 2019 order, that it is appropriate,

10

legal, and necessary for Defendants to cover all costs associated with these two evaluations based

11

on Defendants’ constitutional obligation to provide Plaintiff with adequate medical treatment. See

12

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).

13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants arrange and pay for two in-person

14

medical evaluation of Plaintiff by June 14, 2019, one by his former treating psychiatrist Dr.

15

Roitman and one by Defendants’ offered medical provider Dr. Exum. Dr. Roitman and Dr. Exum

16

are each instructed to prepare a report regarding their evaluation for submission to this Court. The

17

report must address (1) a current medical diagnosis of Plaintiff including a discussion of his

18

medical history; (2) whether Plaintiff’s prior prescriptions for Seroquel and Wellbutrin are

19

medically necessary in light of his medical history, diagnoses, and present-day symptoms; (3) the

20

existence of and efficacy of alternative medications and/or treatments; and (4) the extent of regular

21

monitoring and in-person treatment that will be required for Plaintiff for any future medical

22

treatment. The reports of these physicians should be submitted to the Court by June 28, 2019.

23

Defendants shall make the arrangements for these appointments and provide a copy of this order

24

and the Court’s previous order (ECF No. 106) on the preliminary injunction to both physicians.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-2-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 111), which the Court

2

construes as a request that the Court decline to consider Defendants’ proposed medical examiner,

3

is DENIED. To the extent Plaintiff’s appears to seek sanctions against Defendants in his Motion,

4

the Court finds no basis for sanctions against Defendants at this time.

5
6

DATED: May 8, 2019.
____________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-