Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

William v. Funk

March 23, 2006


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge


This case is before the court to consider the Defendant, Dr. Arthur D. Funk motion for summary judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56, d/e 63, and the plaintiff's response thereto, d/e 68.


Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on June 30, 2003. Plaintiff alleges that he was confined at the Stateville Correctional Center from October 26, 1997 through January 28, 2002. Plaintiff has been confined at Pontiac Correctional Center since January 28, 2002. Plaintiff alleges in Count II of his First Amended Complaint that he received improper medical care from Arthur D. Funk, M.D., between January 28, 2002 through the time plaintiff filed his original Complaint on November 27, 2002. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that after he was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Facility on 1/28/02 that Dr. Funk ordered that Plaintiff be denied all treatment that had been previously rendered to him at Stateville Correctional Center, with the exception of PTU thyroid medication. Plaintiff alleges that PTU, taken in the absence of other treatment, caused the plaintiff to suffer unnecessary painful side effects and that Dr. Funk refused, without medical cause, to provide him with periodic eye testing, dietary supplements, a special diet bag in addition to his regular meal, pain relievers, a back brace, physical therapy, and calcium supplements (Tums) to alleviate problems caused by his thyroid medication.


Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Herman v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 744 F.2d 604, 607 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028 (1985). In determining whether factual issues exist, the court must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Beraha v. Baxter Health Corp., 956 F.2d 1436, 1440 (7th Cir. 1992).

However, Rule 56(c) "mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, 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, 477 U.S. at 322. "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party there is no 'genuine' issue for trial." Mechnig v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 864 F.2d 1359 (7th Cir. 1988). A "metaphysical doubt" will not suffice. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Disputed facts are material only if they might affect the outcome of the suit. First Ind. Bank v. Baker, 957 F.2d 506, 507-08 (7th Cir. 1992). The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, *247-248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986).

Undisputed Material Facts

A. Attached to the Defendant's summary judgment motion, d/e 63, as Exhibit A is the deposition transcript of the Plaintiff, Kurtis Williams. Mr. Williams testified to the following undisputed facts:

1. The Plaintiff arrived at the Stateville Correctional Center in October of 1998 or 1999. Ex. A, pg. 9.

2. The Plaintiff left Stateville on January 28, 2002 and was transferred to Pontiac. Ex A, pg. 9.

3. Williams believes that he is 5' 11" tall. Ex. A, pg. 64-65.

4. He believed he weighed over 189 when he arrived at Pontiac. Ex. A, pg. 115.

5. Plaintiff examined a body mass index chart and did not disagree that the ideal weight for a 5' 11" male is between 136-172 pounds. Ex. A, pg. 64-65.

6. The Plaintiff understood that with Grave's disease the thyroid gland is excreting too many hormones. Ex. A, pg. 92.

7. The Plaintiff understood that PTU counteracts the excessive hormone secretion. Ex. A, pg. 92.

8. At the time of his deposition, May 18, 2004, the Plaintiff was no longer on PTU. Ex. A, pg. 94.

9. When he first arrived at Pontiac, the Plaintiff was given an entrance physical examination by Dr. Funk. Ex. A, pg. 101.

10. The Plaintiff believed he should have continued to receive Ensure drinks even though the file showed that he weighed 199 pounds when he arrived at Pontiac. Ex. A, pg. 113-114.

11. Since the Plaintiff has been at Pontiac no healthcare practitioner ever told him that he should be on Ensure. Ex. A, pg. 137.

12. The Plaintiff agreed that it was not unreasonable for Dr. Funk to terminate the Ensure and the snack bag (extra food) when he was already overweight according to the BMI (body mass index) chart. Ex. A, pg. 115.

13. Since the Plaintiff has been at Pontiac, no healthcare practitioner ever told him that he should have an extra food bag or extra rations. Ex. A, pg. 137.

14. The Plaintiff acknowledged that no healthcare practitioner has ever told him that Dr. Funk made an improper decision when he terminated the physical therapy, the back brace, the Ensure, and the extra food. Ex. A, pg. 124.

15. The Plaintiff admitted that no one told him that he was not on a proper diet. Ex. A, pg. 117.

16. The Plaintiff claims that after his second visit with Dr. Funk the blood tests came back and Dr. Funk adjusted ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.