United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
FREDERICK J. KAPALA District Judge
Shicker's motion to dismiss  is granted. Dr. Shicker
is terminated from this case.
Charles Almond, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) housed in the Dixon
Correctional Center (“DCC”), brought this suit
against defendants, Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
(“Wexford”); Jill Wahl, M.D.; Bessie Dominguez,
M.D.; Hector Garcia, M.D.; Louis Shicker, M.D.; and Assistant
Warden Charles Fasano. Almond alleges a violation of the
Eighth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming
that a wide-spread medical practice allowed for deliberate
indifference to his medical needs, causing him permanent
disability. Before the court is Dr. Shicker's Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Almond's claim against him on
the grounds that he has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
about May 16, 2013, Almond was injured while running in the
prison yard. At the time the injury occurred, Dr. Shicker was
the IDOC Medical Director. This job entailed overseeing the
medical services for all correctional centers, including the
DCC. On May 18, 2013, Almond reported the injury of his right
knee and leg to a staff nurse. This nurse was an employee of
Wexford. She examined him and provided him with crutches,
pain medication, and an ace wrap to help manage the pain.
Almond continued to complain of pain on May 24, May 31, and
June 17, 2013.
21, 2013, Dr. Dominguez examined Almond after he complained
of severe pain and claimed that he had fallen out of his bunk
due to the condition. Dr. Dominguez gave him a permit for a
lower bunk, gym restriction, and pain medication. Almond
visited Dr. Dominguez once again on July 15, 2013, and
complained that the treatment was ineffective. Dr. Dominguez
decided to keep the same treatment plan and continued to
recommend it at subsequent visits.
September 12, 2013, Almond was examined by Dr. Wahl, who
suspected that Almond suffered from a quadricep tear to the
right knee. Dr. Wahl recommended that Almond receive a
consult from an orthopedic physician. On September 25, 2013,
after a medical consultation, Wexford decided to deny
referring Almond to an orthopedic physician and instead to
continue treatment onsite. During this time, Almond suffered
an injury to his right hip and elbow due to the previous
injury to his right knee.
December 10, 2013, Wexford authorized an offsite consultation
with an orthopedic specialist. Almond was transported to an
orthopedic specialist at the University of Illinois Chicago
Medical Center, on March 7, 2014. The specialist diagnosed a
quadricep tendon tear in the right knee. He recommended an
MRI to examine the injury further and also suggested that
Almond be examined by an orthopedic surgeon. The MRI revealed
a partial rupture of the quadriceps tendon and an old healed
avulsion fracture and prior tear of the medial meniscus.
October 7, 2014, Almond was sent back to the orthopedic
specialist, who noted that he was examining Almond “by
mistake, ” and once again recommended that Almond see a
surgeon. On January 12, 2015, Almond saw an orthopedic
surgeon who recommended surgery on the right knee. On March
3, 2015, Almond received the surgery on his right knee, but
alleges that he is permanently disabled due to the delay in
second amended complaint, Almond alleges that Dr. Shicker and
Wexford had notice of a wide-spread practice by medical
personnel at the DCC, whereby inmates were routinely denied
access to proper medical attention. Almond claims that Dr.
Shicker and Wexford were deliberately indifferent to this
practice by failing to properly discipline prior instances of
medical neglect by their agents, which encouraged future
abuse of the medical rights of inmates and caused the
unconstitutional treatment resulting in his injury.
the court is Dr. Shicker's motion to dismiss Almond's
second amended complaint. Dr. Shicker argues that
Almond's second amended complaint should be dismissed for
failure to state a plausible claim because he does not allege
that Dr. Shicker was personally involved in the alleged
deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Almond, on the
other hand, argues that the second amended complaint states a
valid claim because Dr. Shicker should have had notice of an
unconstitutional policy or practice and did nothing to try to
deciding a defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court accepts
all of the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint
as true, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiff. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007). To state a claim under the Federal Rules, a
complaint need only contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “[D]etailed
factual allegations” are not required, but the
plaintiff must ...