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.

Delgado v. Wexford Healthcare Sources

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 9, 2016

OSCAR DELGADO #K92173, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTHCARE SOURCES, OSMUDSON, ROGERICK MATTICKS, WILLIAMS, and HEATHER CARPENTER Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Oscar Delgado, formerly an inmate in Robinson Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(a) Screening - The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

         An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross "the line between possibility and plausibility." Id. at 557. At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         The Complaint

         In July 2015, while playing basketball in the gymnasium, Plaintiff was elbowed in the nose. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He was told to put in for nurse sick call, which he did. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff saw Nurse Rice the following morning. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He reported severe headaches and Rice told him his nose was likely broken but that there was not much to be done. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Rice gave Plaintiff 200 mg ibuprofen. (Doc. 1, p. 6).

         Plaintiffs headaches continued. (Doc. 1, p. 6). One month later, he returned to health care and received 325 mg acetaminophen. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff continued to experience headaches and blurry vision. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He saw Defendant Osmudson and requested an x-ray or CT Scan. Defendant Osmudson responded, "where do you think your [sic] at? Your [sic] not at home, your[sic] in prison." (Doc. 1, p. 6). Defendant Osmudson asked Plaintiff to track his finger, told Plaintiff to try hot water on his neck and gave him 600 mg ibuprofen. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Osmudson told Plaintiff the damage to his nose was cosmetic and that the prison would not fix it. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff continued to experience severe headaches, dizziness and memory loss. (Doc. 1, p. 6).

         He then saw Defendant Williams, who ordered an x-ray. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Williams told Plaintiff that he doesn't like helping inmates unless he knows the medical issue is red. (Doc. 1, p. 7). The x-ray was negative. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiffs nose has shifted to one side and nothing has helped resolve his other issues. (Doc. 1, p. 7).

         Plaintiff alleges that Wexford Health Care has a policy or custom to stay under a budget and that employees receive rewards if they do. (Doc. 1, p. 7). He further alleges that Wexford imposes cost 'considerations' that steer patients towards cheaper medications and away from services that have to be performed at an outside institution, like CT-scans and MRIs. (Doc. 1, p. 7). He alleges that Defendants Matticks, Osmudson, Williams and Carpenter are aware of Wexford's contract. (Doc. 1, p. 7).

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into two counts. The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders, ...


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.