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.

McCaskill v. Manilla

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

December 30, 2014

DR. MANILLA, et al., Defendants.



Plaintiff Stephen Douglas McCaskill, a pretrial detainee at the Cook County Jail, has brought more than a dozen lawsuits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the conditions of his confinement at Cook County. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, health care providers at the jail, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in failing to provide him with appropriate high blood pressure medication. Defendants have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), and have served Plaintiff with the notice called for by our Local Rule 56.2, explaining the requirements for responding to the motion and the consequences of failure to do so properly. As explained below, the motion is granted.


This court's Local Rule 56.1 sets forth the procedures for moving for summary judgment and for responding to such a motion. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is properly supported by a statement of facts citing relevant portions of the record. Plaintiff responded to the motion with a memorandum in opposition to the motion [47] and a response to certain of the movants' statement of material facts [48]. The court accepts the assertions in Defendants' statements as true to the extent that the facts are supported in the record. See L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C); Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013); Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 880 (7th Cir. 2012). The court is not required to scour the record looking for factual disputes nor expected to manufacture Plaintiff's arguments for him. See Diadenko v. Folino, 741 F.3d 751, 757 (7th Cir. 2013); see also Herman v. City of Chicago, 870 F.2d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 1989), but has reviewed records submitted by both parties. Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1, does not result in an automatic grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Instead, the court still must evaluate all facts in the light most favorable to him, the non-moving party. See FED. R. CIV, P. 56(e)(2); Keeton, 667 F.3d at 884.


Plaintiff Stephen Douglas McCaskill (hereinafter, "Plaintiff" or "McCaskill") was a pretrial detainee at Cook County Jail during the relevant time period. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. [42] ¶ 1.) Nurse Genevieve Sombero performed an intake screening on November 20, 2012, and referred Plaintiff for a medical assessment. ( Id. at ¶¶ 2, 3.) Intake records list Plaintiff as taking certain medications: ASA (aspirin), Clonidine (used to treat high blood pressure), HCTZ (a diuretic), Norvasc (another blood pressure medication), and psychiatric medications. ( Id. at ¶ 2.) The screening record noted that Plaintiff was allergic to Haldol, an anti-psychotic medication, and Thorazine, another anti-psychotic drug. ( Id. at ¶ 4.) According to the intake form, Plaintiff was consuming heroin and cocaine daily prior to his incarceration and had a history of high blood pressure. ( Id. )

Plaintiff's blood pressure was taken on November 20, 2012, and was measured at 141 mmHg/ 88 mmHg. ( Id. at ¶ 6.) Dr. Salim Dawalibi explained that blood pressure is measured by monitoring the systolic blood pressure, which is the maximum arterial pressure during contraction of the left ventricle of the heart, and the diastolic blood pressure, which is the minimum arterial pressure during the relaxation and dilation of the ventricles of the heart when the heart is at rest. ( Id. at ¶ 7, citing Affidavit of Dr. Salim Dawalibi, Exhibit C to Rule 56.1 Stmt.) Average blood pressure is considered 120/80, and elevated blood pressure is generally 140/90. ( Id. at ¶ 8.)

Following initial screening by Nurse Sombero, Plaintiff had an additional medical assessment performed by Physician Assistant Salvador Martinez. HIs blood pressure tested at 141/88 and 168/88, and PA Martinez ordered that Plaintiff's blood pressure be checked daily from November 20, 2012, through November 23, 2012. ( Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10.) Martinez also directed ordered that Plaintiff receive sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim (anti-bacterial medication), ibuprofen, hydrochlorothiazide (a diuretic), Amlodipine (a drug used to treat high blood pressure), prochlorperazine (an anti-psychotic medication), Loperamide (an anti-diarrheal drug), hydrozyzine pamoate (a sedative), and Dicyclomine (a medication used to treat irritable bowel syndrome). ( Id. ) Martinez referred Plaintiff to a primary care physician. ( Id. )

After the initial medical assessment, Plaintiff had an additional mental health screening performed by Donna Albert. ( Id. at ¶ 11.) During this additional mental health screening, Plaintiff disclosed that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression at age 17 and had more than 10 prior psychiatric hospitalizations. ( Id. at ¶¶ 11, 12.) He stated that he had taken Paxil and Risperidone about two months before his incarceration. ( Id. at ¶ 14.) Albert noted Plaintff's diagnoses of hypertension and paranoid schizophrenia. ( Id. at ¶ 15.) Plaintiff was then seen by Dr. Eiizabeth P. Lassen, an osteopath, who reviewed his history and made a list of documents she had reviewed. ( Id. at ¶ 16.)

Plaintiff was seen at the Cermak ER on November 21, 2012, and given Loperamide, Diyclomine, Compazine, Hydroxyzine, and Clonidine.[1] ( Id. at ¶ 17.) His lood pressure readings were 135/99 on November 21, 2012; 132/80 on November 22, 2012; 137/98 on November 23, 2012; 136/98 on November 24, 2012; 130/97 on November 25, 2012; and 143/98 on November 29, 2102. ( Id. at ¶¶ 18-23.) Records show Plaintiff was medicated for his hypertension: He received Hydrochlorothiazide and Amlopidine from December 3 through December 17; from December 19 through December 31; from January 1 through January 3; and from January 5 through January 31. ( Id. at ¶¶ 24, 25, 27, 28.)

On December 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Health Services Request Form reporting that he was not receiving baby aspirin, Clonidine, or Norvasc, that his arm, leg and foot hurt; that he needed pain medication; and that his gums were swollen. ( Id. at ¶ 26.) Additional Health Services Request Forms similarly noted that since his entry to the Jail, he had not received the Norvasc, Clonidine, baby aspirin, or potassium chloride as prescribed (January 6, 2013) and that he was not getting Paxil, Norvasc, potassium chloride, baby aspirin, or Clonidine (January 22, 2013). ( Id. at ¶ 29, 30.) The January 22, 2013 request form also noted that Plaintiff had foot fungus and a skin rash on his left leg and arms as a result of an injury that had occurred on April 10, 2009, that he needed glasses, and that he had very dry skin. ( Id. at ¶¶ 31, 32.)

Records dated February 11, 2013, show that on that date Dr. Manisha Patel restarted a prescription for Clonidine and increased the dosage of Amlodipline that Plaintiff had been receiving. (Exhibit to Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment [48], page 10 of 20.) Plaintiff's blood pressure on February 11, 2013 was measured at 151mmHg / 103mmHg. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 33.) On February 21, 2013, an ultrasound was taken of Plaintiff's internal carotid artery and common carotid artery, and no significant atherosclerotic plague was identified within either artery. ( Id. at ¶ 34.)

On March 15, 2013, Dr. Lisa Bustin saw Plaintiff for hypertension preventative care. ( Id. at ¶ 35.) Dr. Bustin noted that Plaintiff's Amlodipine had been increased to 10 mg (from 5mg, which Plaintiff had been receiving upon entry to the jail). She ordered an ultrasound of Plaintiff's neck and a cholesterol panel. ( Id. at ¶ 36.) Dr. Bustin's notes show that the ultrasound and cholesterol panel were within normal limits, and that his blood pressure reading was 110/86. ( Id. at ¶ 37.) Dr. Bustin ordered Amlodipine, Clonidine, aspirin for cardio-vascular protection, Naproxen coupled with Pantoprazole, and chlorhexidine mouthwash. ( Id. at ¶ 38.)

Another blood pressure reading, as of April 30, 2013 (110/80) satisfied Dr. Mansour, who saw Plaintiff on that date, that Plaintiff's hypertension was being treated effectively. ( Id. at ¶¶ 39, 40.) Dr. Mansour ordered Amlodipine, aspirin, Clonidine, Hydrochlorothiazide, ibuprofen, Paroxetine, and Risperidone (medications ...

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.