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.

Chadwick v. Lochard

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois

November 18, 2014

DR. HUGH LOCHARD, et al., Defendants.


JOE BILLY McDADE, District Judge.

Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his incarceration in the Lincoln Correctional Center. He pursues claims arising from an alleged delay in diagnosing and treating his fractured knee.

Plaintiff alleges that, on January 29, 2014, he slipped on ice while walking to the prison cafeteria, suffering injuries which rendered him unable to walk. According to Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff sought medical care for his alleged serious pain and swelling, but he was "treated more like a nuisance than a person in need of medical treatment." (Compl. p. 9.) On February 13, 2014, an x-ray was taken which showed that Plaintiff had fractured his left knee.

Deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment. Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff's own description of his injury allows an inference that the injury was serious. However, inferring deliberate indifference is more difficult. Deliberate indifference is more than malpractice: Deliberate indifference is the conscious disregard of an excessive risk to an inmate's health. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). Deliberate indifference arises when a doctor's decisions are a "such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards, as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.'" Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 894-95 (7th Cir. 2009)(quoted cite omitted).

On September 16, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide more factual allegations describing what actions were taken by Defendants during the two weeks between his slip and fall and the taking of an x-ray. In response, Plaintiff submitted several documents and some additional factual allegations.

One of the documents submitted-a response to Plaintiff's grievance-indicates that during the two weeks between Plaintiff's fall and the x-ray Plaintiff received the following care: Motrin and Tylenol for pain, instructions to keep his foot and knee elevated, Bactrim and antibiotics to treat open sores, a slow walk pass, a bottom bunk permit, and ice packs. He was also kept in the infirmary for much, but not all, of the time. (d/e 10, p. 9.) X-ray and labs were ordered on February 7, 2014, and Plaintiff was admitted to the infirmary on a more permanent basis on February 14, 2014, after the x-ray showed an "acute left tibial plateau fracture." Id.

Plaintiff does not appear to dispute that he received the care set forth in the above paragraph. What he seems to challenge is an alleged delay in the diagnosis of the fracture; an alleged refusal to prescribe effective pain medicine; the doctor's alleged instruction to Plaintiff to walk on his injured knee; and, an alleged delay in providing Plaintiff a wheelchair.

In particular, Plaintiff alleges that he was sent from the infirmary back to his cell on January 30 or 31, 2014, but that he returned to the health care unit on February 3, 2014, complaining that he could not stand on his leg. He was allegedly in so much pain that tears were running down his face. (d/e 10, p. 11.) The nurses allegedly admitted Plaintiff to the infirmary but refused Plaintiff's pleas for stronger pain medicine and refused to empty his urine bottle, forcing Plaintiff to urinate in a nearby trashcan. Id . Plaintiff allegedly saw Dr. Obaisi on February 7, 2014, who told Plaintiff that his ankles were badly sprained and that Plaintiff should "walk it out." On February 8, 2014, still in the infirmary, Plaintiff was ordered to "ambulate" with a walker in order to help relieve his pain. (d/e 11, p. 2.) Plaintiff's requests for stronger pain medicine were again allegedly refused. On February 12, 2014, Plaintiff was allegedly released from the infirmary despite his protestations and again told to "walk it off, " even though Plaintiff told the health care staff that something was seriously wrong because he could not walk on the leg or bear any weight on the leg. Plaintiff alleges that he could not walk to the prison cafeteria or stand for his shower. On February 13, 2014, Plaintiff did manage to walk, allegedly with great difficulty and pain, to receive an x-ray, which showed that his knee was fractured. Id . p. 3. A wheel chair was allegedly still not ordered for Plaintiff until 45 days after his injury. Id.

In addition to these more detailed factual allegations, Plaintiff has provided a March, 2014, preoperative report from an orthopedic surgeon which seems to suggest that Plaintiff's weight bearing after the injury caused further harm to the structure of Plaintiff's knee. The report reads in pertinent part:

Since films that are given to us are on a CD, they are reviewed and dated February 13, 2014, show an acute-appearing proximal tibial medial plateau fracture; however, patient has been full weight bearing. Therefore, x-rays are repeated and there is significant collapse of the entire medial plateau, widening of the intercondylar notch of the tibia. This is now a displaced and angulated tibia apparent[ly] due to the patient's full weight bearing. I do not know what restrictions were placed on the patient initially after injury or after the diagnosis made with this x-ray.

(Dr. Olysav March 2014 Report, d/e 10, p. 19.) Another report indicates that Plaintiff had knee surgery in May, 2014. (Dr. Olysav July 2014 report, d/e 10, p. 20.)

The Court concludes that Plaintiff's additional factual allegations allow an inference that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his injury. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered severe and unnecessary pain, as well as further structural damage to his knee, as a result of the delay in diagnosis, the instruction to "walk it off, " and the refusal to provide effective pain relief. "[A] delay in the provision of medical treatment for painful conditions-even non-life-threatening conditions-can support a deliberate-indifference claim..., so long as the medical condition is sufficiently serious or painful.'" Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 779 (7th Cir. 2008)(reversing summary judgment to the defendants on a prisoner's claim of a 1 ½ day delay in obtaining medical care for the prisoner's broken nose)(quoted and other cites omitted); see also Williams v. Liefer, 491 F.3d 710, 715 (7th Cir.2007)(whether a six-hour delay in obtaining medical treatment for a prisoner's chest pain prolonged and exacerbated his pain and high blood pressure was a jury question); Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 662 (7th Cir. 2004)(unjustified delay in providing prescribed antibiotic could allow jury to conclude that delay caused prisoner "many more hours of needless suffering for no reason.") Accordingly, this case will proceed for service pursuant to the standard procedures.

Plaintiff has also filed a "motion to introduce a medical issue." (d/e 9.) He states that he is legally blind, his left eye having been amputated. Plaintiff does not appear to be trying to add this as a claim. He appears to simply be informing the Court of his disability. The Court will take that ...

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.