Banks v. Adler et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying 57 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 6/8/09. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ---------------------------------------------C EA SA R R. BANKS, P l a i n t i ff , OPINION AND ORDER v. 09-cv-009-bbc D R . BURTON COX and MARY BARTELS, D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------O n April 14, 2009, I denied plaintiff Ceasar Banks's motion for a preliminary in ju nctio n on his claim that defendants Dr. Burton Cox and Mary Bartels are not permitting him to undergo surgery on his left shoulder, as recommended by an orthopedic specialist in June 2008. Dkt. #50. I found that plaintiff's medical records showed that his shoulder co nditio n is less severe than he alleges, more recent medical opinions recommended only physical therapy and there was no evidence that he has a grade 1 AC separation or that he w i ll be harmed if he does not undergo surgery immediately. Plaintiff now has moved for reco n sid eratio n of that decision, alleging that he has new medical documentation of his AC join t separation and that defendant Dr. Burton Cox is unqualified because he has a limited licen se to practice medicine. Dkt. #57.

1

Plaintiff's additional evidence is not compelling. As an initial matter, I note that defendants challenge the medical report on the ground that it is not authenticated. That argum ent is not persuasive. Defendants do not argue that the record is false, only that it is inad m issible. Plaintiff could remedy that problem by asking his medical provider to certify that the document is a true and accurate copy of his medical record. More to the point is the fact that the medical record fails to show that the court erred in denying plaintiff's p relim in ary injunction. A lth ou gh the record shows that plaintiff has an "AC joint separation, maybe first or seco n d degree," no specific course of treatment was recommended. Surgery is not

m en tio n ed , and plaintiff was prescribed Ultram for pain. Without more, plaintiff cannot sh o w that his condition requires immediate medical attention. Planned Parenthood of W iscon sin v. Doyle, 162 F.3d 463, 473 (7th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff also submits what appears to be an article noting that in 1992, the W isconsin Medical Examining Board gave defendant Cox a limited license with the con dition s that he undergo drug abuse treatment and remain free of drugs and alcohol. Dkt. # 69 . In response, defendant Cox submitted a copy of his Wisconsin medical license, show ing no current limitations. Plaintiff's evidence seems outdated and is irrelevant to defendan t Cox's current qualifications. For these reasons, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be denied.

2

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Ceasar Banks's motion for reconsideration, dkt. #57, is DENIED. E n tered this 8t h day of June, 2009.

B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3