Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Sharvelt Mister v. T.J. Collins

February 3, 2011

SHARVELT MISTER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
T.J. COLLINS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Williams, Magistrate Judge:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Before the Court is Defendants' Charles Ampadu, M.D., Barbara Rodriguez, and Jennifer Rude-Little's Combined Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief (Doc. 97). Specifically, Defendants seek to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims against the various Defendants because the undisputed facts demonstrate that there was no deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs. Plaintiff has filed a Response in opposition to Defendants' motion (Doc. 100). Based on the following, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 97).

II. Factual Background

This matter stems from a course of events that took place between approximately September 2005 and April 2007. At all relevant times Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the St. Clair County Jail. Plaintiff was transferred to the Pickneyville Correctional Center and the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections on or about March 27, 2007.

Plaintiff Mister suffers from severe vision problems requiring corrective lenses (Doc. 97 Ex. A at pp. 116-119). Two or three weeks prior to entering St. Clair County Jail, Plaintiff lost his right contact lens and as a result only had his left lense when he entered the jail (Id.).

On September 5, 2005, Plaintiff submitted a Health Services Request Form complaining about eye pain and blurriness (Doc. 100 Ex. A at #76). Nurse Jennifer Rude-Little acknowledged the request and on September 17, 2005, she took his Intake Medical History and Screening (Id. at #76, 79-80). At that time, she noted that Plaintiff wore correct lenses but was missing one (Id.).

On December 4, 2005, Plaintiff was attacked by three prisoners and as a result suffered three cuts to his head, a swollen right eye, knots on his head, broken teeth, and injuries to his wrist, back, and elbow (Doc. 97 Ex. A at pp. 69-70). Afer the attack, Plaintiff was visited by Nurse Linda Slate who washed out his wounds and applied triple antibiotic ointment (Doc. 97 Ex. B at pp. 88-89). Nurse Slate also provide Plaintiff with ice for his injuries (Doc. 100 Ex. A at #74). While Defendants state that Plaintiff did not know the name of the nurse who attended him on the evening of his attack, they acknowledge that notes in his chart regarding the visit were made by Nurse Slate.

The next day following his attack, Plaintiff met with Nurse Barbara Rodriguez regarding his injuries (Doc. 97 Ex. A at p. 106). Further, on December 9, 2005, he submitted a Health Services Request Form regarding his attack and his complaints about injuries stemming from the attack, including sharp pains in his head, blurry vision, black spots, blood in his phlegm, dizziness, right eye pain, and a busted head (Doc. 100 Ex. A at #73). Dr. Ampadu met with Plaintiff on December 13, 2005 for examination (Id. at #72). Dr Ampadu ordered a skull x-ray on December 15, 2005 but the xray was unremarkable (Doc. 97 Ex. A at 104-105; Doc. 100 Ex. A at #89). Dr. Ampadu testified in his deposition that he also examined Plaintiff's wrist but that he was able to move it back and forth and it showed no sign of a fracture (Doc. 97 Ex. B at p. 105). Dr. Ampadu believed plaintiff had generalized muscle pain and thus he prescribed ibuprofen, muscle relaxant, and other pain medications, including Flexeril and Tylenol 3 (Id. at pp. 104-105, 198). While Dr. Ampadu testified that it was his practice to take copies of the x-rays to Kenneth Hall Orthopedics for review by Dr. Ramon or Dr. Pulisetty, it is unknown whether such a review took place in this case (Id. at p. 142). While Defendants note that Plaintiff had been evaluated for wrist problems in August of 2003, it is unknown whether someone reviewed Dr. Ampadu's findings from the x-ray during this particular incident (Doc. 97 Ex. F).

Following his initial meeting with Dr. Ampadu after his attack, Plaintiff filed a series of Health Services Request Form complaining of identical pain and vision issues dating from December 17, 2005 until February 10, 2007 (See Doc. 100 Ex. A). On December 17 and 20, 2005 Plaintiff submitted Health Services Request Form and on December 22, 2005, Dr. Ampadu again saw Plaintiff, explained the results of his skull x-ray and explained that his pain was musculoskeletal (Id. at #68-70). On December 25 & 29, 2005 and January 2 & 8, 2006, Plaintiff again submitted Health Services Request Forms and was seen by the medical staff on January 14, 2006 (Id. at # 64-67). The staff noted that his left wrist was swollen and he was experiencing limited range of motion (Id. at #64). A left wrist x-ray and follow up with Dr. Ampadu was noted in the treatment plan although no x-ray was scheduled on that date (Id.).

On January 14, 2006, Plaintiff again submitted a Health Services Request Form complaining of the same issues he had been experiencing since his attack (Id. at #63). Dr. Ampadu saw Plaintiff again on January 17, 2006 and prescribed Motrin 800 in response to Plaintiff's complaint of pain (Id. at #62). On January 18, 22, & 28, as well as February 5, 14, & 21, 2006 Plaintiff again submitted Health Services Request Forms, noting that his pain medication did not appear to be working (Id. at #56-61). In his January 18 Request Form he mentioned an outside eye consultation (Id. at #60). Dr. Ampadu again saw Plaintiff on February 24, 2006. He noted that Plaintiff was still complaining of pain from the beating (Id. at #55). Dr. Ampadu also noted tenderness in his left wrist and ordered an x-ray of the wrist (Id.). The x-ray indicated a suspected fracture and a follow up navicular series of x-rays were recommended in order to determine if Plaintiff was indeed suffering from a fracture (Id. at #87-88). Dr. Ampadu met with Plaintiff again on February 28, 2006 and noted the suspected fracture and ordered the navicular series of x-rays which showed that the fracture was in a satisfactory position (Id. at #53, 87).

Throughout March and April, Plaintiff submitted several requests for health services indicating that his hand was still swollen and he was still experiencing the same pain associated with his December attack. Forms for health services were sent on March 9, 16, & 21 and April 7 and 19 (Id. at #46, 49-52). On April 21, 2006 Nurse Rude-Little met with Dr. Ampadu and discussed Plaintiff's wrist injury (Id. at #48). He, in turn, ordered an additional x-ray which indicated his wrist was healing and was in a satisfactory position (Id.).

St. Clair County Circuit Court also issued an Order for a medical evaluation of Plaintiff by Dr. Ampadu on April 25, 2006 (Id. at #149). Dr. Ampadu was supposed to evaluate Plaintiff to determine the medical necessity of outside medical treatment. Dr. Ampadu's evaluation noted Plaintiff's complaints of headaches and wrist pain, but he ultimately determined that no outside medical treatment was needed (Id. at #48).

After his evaluation, Plaintiff again submitted Health Service Request Forms on May 1, 8, & 21, 2006 (Id. at # 43-45). Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Ampadu for complaints involving his vision problems. Dr. Ampadu acknowledged his eye problem., noting it was an existing eye problem (Id. at #42). Again, Plaintiff submitted Request Forms on May 29, June 14, July 3, 14, & 31, August 22, September 6,11, 17, & 26 and October 8, 12, 16, 27 & 29, 2006 for the same pains he continued to complain about since December of 2005 (Id. at #16, 20, 23-25, 27-29, 31-34, 37-38, 41). On November 8, 2006, the Circuit Court in St. Clair County issued a second Order requesting medical treatment of ...


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.