United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
Hammond, Plaintiff, Pro se, Mount Sterling, IL.
Angel Rector, Dr Wahl, Dr. Shute, Dr Shah, Nurse Lane,
Defendants: Timothy P. Dugan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Tyler C.
Thompson, Sandberg, Phoenix et al. - St. Louis, St. Louis,
Christy Brown, K Deen, Defendants: Eric J. Bulman, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Illinois Attorney General's Office -
Springfield, Springfield, IL.
M. YANDLE, DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are the Defendants' motions for summary
judgment (Docs. 110 and 121). Plaintiff, an inmate with the
Illinois Department of Corrections (" IDOC" ),
alleges that various IDOC and Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
(" Wexford" ) employees violated his constitutional
rights. United States District Judge Gilbert conducted a
Merits Review of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A and held that Plaintiff stated a
colorable claim of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
to serious medical needs against Defendants Nurse Angel
Rector, Christy Brown, Dr. Shute, Dr. Shah, Nurse Lane, Dr.
Wahl, and Kimberly Deen. Defendants now seek summary
judgment. For the following reasons, the Court
GRANTS summary judgment as to Defendants
Christy Brown, Dr. Wahl and Kimberly Deen, and
DENIES summary judgment as to Defendants
Angel Rector, Dr. Shute, Dr. Shah and Nurse Lane.
2003, Plaintiff was shot three times with a twelve gauge
shotgun and, as a result, was paralyzed on the right side of
his body for approximately one month (Doc. 122-1, p. 4). He
eventually regained movement but continues to suffer from
nerve damage, atrophy and arthritis. . . particularly on his
right side. The incidents that give rise to this litigation
occurred from 2010 through 2012 while Plaintiff was housed at
Center (Docs. 14-15). Because Plaintiff asserts Eighth
Amendment violations for a period exceeding two years, the
medical records in this case are voluminous and, in some
parts, difficult to read. With this information in mind, we
turn to the facts of this case.
IDOC medical records from Pinckneyville state that in June of
2009 Plaintiff received a low bunk / low gallery medical
permission slip along with a physically challenged medical
permission slip. Each medical permission slip was scheduled
to last one year in duration. In late September of 2009
Plaintiff received a medical permission slip to have a splint
for his right wrist, which was to last indefinitely (Doc
111-3, p. 2). On November 25, 2009, Plaintiff was examined by
Defendant Nurse Practitioner Angel Rector. Prior to the
examination, Plaintiff had been taking
Neurontin, Baclofen and Motrin for his
medical conditions. Nurse Rector then took Plaintiff off of
the Baclofen and prescribed him 300 mg of Neurontin twice per
day, 50 mg of Ultram twice per day along with sixty 400 mg
Motrin pills per month to take as needed. Plaintiff also
received a 30 day Metamucil prescription (Doc 111-3, p. 2).
records indicate that, from January until the end of March,
2010, Plaintiff was seen and/or treated ten times by nurses
and doctors for pain, constipation, mental health evaluations
and other tests. On April 27, one day after Plaintiff
received a one year renewal for his wrist wrap permit,
Plaintiff told Nurse Rector that he was experiencing new pain
in his knee and hip (Doc. 122-1, p. 12). Nurse Rector then
increased Plaintiff's morning Ultram dosage from 50 mg to
100 mg but discontinued his evening Ultram pill and Motrin
prescription. Nurse Rector additionally issued one roll of
paper tape for his wrist wrap. Her notes state:
I/M has multiple wants [and] needs while here for clinic.
Difficult to focus on clinic due to I/M constantly talking
about all his need. C/O knees [and] hips hurting -- wanting
Metamucil, needing tape, having headaches etc.
On May 4, 2010 Plaintiff gave a note to the Health Care Unit
(" HCU" ) stating that he was not receiving his
medication, that he requested a wrist wrap and that he would
like to discuss his urinalysis results. On May 8, 2010
Plaintiff was seen by LPN Boyd. Boyd wrote that he ambulated
without difficulty, that his Motrin was not renewed and that
he was to be placed on the MD line.
stated in his deposition that around this time, some degree
began to develop between him and Nurse Rector. On May 20,
2010 Nurse Rector wrote a note in Plaintiff's medical
NP NOTE: I/M last seen by [physical therapist] for eval
8/2009. Is due for re-eval of his permits, requests tape for
ace wrap [and] motrin renewal in addition to his Ultram [and]
Neurontin. I/M ambulates w/o difficulty. No obvious handicaps
noted. Functions well enough to previously have
jobs/assignmins in IDOC, working in maintenance areas, etc.
-- needs to be reevaluted -- as he has normal level of
functioning [and] does not appear to be " physically
challenged" . . . I/M ambulates well up on exam table
[without] problem. Off table [without] problem. Full ROM of
all extremities. Good strength. Wrist wrap [right] wrist --
appears to be of little benefit. . . [Assessment]: "
Neuropathy." [Plan]: Physical therapist to eval
(re-eval) for level of functioning -- i.e., should he be
considered " physically challenged?" Does he need
wrist wrap? Does he need new sleeve? I/M to P/U [with] MD
[after] PT eval. . .
Nurse Rector's note appears to be a general summary of
Plaintiff's condition because Plaintiff denied at his
deposition that he was seen on that date.
25, 2010 there is a note from Nurse Rector stating that
Plaintiff requested to have his Ultram changed from the 100mg
once a day back to the 50mg twice a day. Nurse Rector
approved the request. On May 26, 2010 Plaintiff was seen by
an LPN and he stated that his Motrin prescription had
expired. Plaintiff was also seen by an LPN on May 29, 2010
and he again requested Motrin. He was given some Tylenol and
referred to see a NP.
13, 2010 Plaintiff was examined by an LPN in response to a
request to have a low bunk permit. Records indicate that
Plaintiff was to be referred to an MD or PA for the low bunk
permit evaluation. Around this time, Plaintiff had filed a
grievance regarding the discontinuation of his Motrin. On
June 15, 2010 Nurse Rector responded by stating that she did
not feel the Motrin was necessary in light of his Neurontin
and Ultram and the fact that long term use of Motrin can lead
to stomach problems. Nurse Rector also wrote a note on June
17, 2010 stating that Plaintiff would not be granted
physically challenged status pending an examination by a
8, 2010 Plaintiff was examined by physical therapist Dan
Varel, who noted:
[Assessment]: [Right] UE [and] LE weakness with mild
synergistic tone. Impaired [right] hand coordination --
mild/moderate fine motor deficit. Functionally, I think I/M
would have difficulty carrying objects in each hand [with]
skill -- such as a tray and cup or manipulating a bar of soap
in his [left] hand.
P: Light constant compression from his wrist wraps would
provide some tone management for wrist/hand skills. Although
he is a higher functioning I/M with impairments I think
" physically challenged" is still the most
(Doc. 125, Exhibits Part 1, p. 7). Despite the physical
therapist's report, Plaintiff was not categorized as
physically challenged, nor would he be for the ...