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.

Manzanales v. Krishna

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

June 30, 2015

Pedro Manzanales, Jr., Plaintiff,
v.
Hare Krishna and Konstantin Slavin, Defendants

Page 973

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 974

For Pedro Manzanales, Jr., Plaintiff: Jennifer Lundy Sender, LEAD ATTORNEY, Robbins, Salomon & Patt, Ltd., Chicago, IL; David Ara Djirikian, Kennedy & Associates, P.C., Chicago, IL.

For Konstantin Slavin, Dr., Hare Krishna, Dr., Defendants: Brian Thomas Henry, LEAD ATTORNEY, Michael A. Barry, Pretzel & Stouffer, Chtd., Chicago, IL.

Page 975

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

John Robert Blakey, United States District Judge.

This is a deliberate indifference action brought under Section 1983. Plaintiff Pedro Manzanales, an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center, alleges that Defendants Dr. Hare Krishna and Dr. Konstantin Slavin caused him to decline obtaining necessary medical care by failing to disclose all material risks of not obtaining that care.

Defendants move to dismiss [43] the Amended Complaint [8] on five separate grounds under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). That motion is denied in its entirety.

I. Legal Standard

Under Rule 12(b)(5), Plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction over Defendants through effective service. Cardenas v. City of Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001, 1005 (7th Cir. 2011). If this Court finds Plaintiff has not met that burden and lacks good cause for not perfecting service, then this Court either must dismiss the suit or specify a time within which Plaintiff must serve Defendants. Id. The decision to dismiss or extend the period for service is within this Court's discretion. Cardenas, 646 F.3d at 1005; United States v. Ligas, 549 F.3d 497, 501 (7th Cir. 2008).

Under Rule 12(b)(6), this Court must construe the Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, accept as true all well-pleaded facts and draw reasonable inferences in their favor. Yeftich v. Navistar, Inc., 722 F.3d 911, 915 (7th Cir. 2013); Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1999). Statements of law, however, need not be accepted as true. Yeftich, 722 F.3d at 915. Rule 12(b)(6) limits this Court's consideration to " allegations set forth in the complaint itself, documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice." Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013).

To survive Defendant's motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the Complaint must " state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Yeftich, 722 F.3d at 915. " A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.

II. Facts

A. Medical Care

This Court accepts as true the following facts from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [8].

Defendants Dr. Hare Krishna and Dr. Konstantin Slavin are orthopedic surgeons allegedly employed by " University of Illinois Hospital." Amended Complaint at 2. On or about September 9, 2011, Dr. Krishna and/or Dr. Slavin performed spinal surgery (specifically, a cervical diskectomy of the C5, C6 and C7 vertebrae) on Plaintiff Pedro Manzanales at the University of Illinois Hospital or otherwise treated him in September 2011. Amended Complaint ¶ ¶ 1, 10. Following the surgery, Plaintiff experienced paralysis in his left leg and numbness on his right side. Amended Complaint ¶ 2.

At an unidentified time (but apparently shortly after the September 9, 2011 surgery), Plaintiff received a CAT scan and MRI which revealed lingering pressure in the C5, C6 and C7 vertebrae. Amended Complaint ¶ 3. Defendants offered Plaintiff a " revision surgery" to alleviate the

Page 976

pressure in his spine, but Plaintiff declined because of his then-understanding of the risks of undergoing and forgoing revision surgery. Amended Complaint ¶ ¶ 4, 11-12. Before deciding to forgo revision surgery and sometime during September 9 to 23, 2011, Plaintiff asked Defendants " extensive questions concerning his future health" and also asked about " any negative ramifications" of forgoing revision surgery. Amended Complaint ¶ ¶ 13-15. Neither Defendant informed Plaintiff that he risked losing use of his left hand by forgoing revision surgery. Amended Complaint ¶ ¶ 11-12, 16.

Plaintiff alleges that his condition deteriorated and that " his left hand became immobile." Amended Complaint ¶ 5. On October 31, 2011, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Slavin and explained his worsening condition. Amended Complaint ¶ 6. Dr. Slavin ordered a MRI, which was administered on December 29, 2011, yet allegedly told Plaintiff that he would not operate on his neck again, ...


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.