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.

Scott v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

July 26, 2017

GREGORY SCOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., DAVID, and BLAKE Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff Gregory Scott, an inmate in Shawnee Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests 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.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff arrived at Shawnee Correctional Center on July 18, 2013. (Doc. 1, p. 7). As part of intake, Plaintiff was sent to the health care unit for screening. Id. Five days later on July 23, 2013, Plaintiff had a doctor visit with Dr. David. Id. David diagnosed Plaintiff with high cholesterol and prescribed medication. Id. After being on the medication for several days, Plaintiff began feeling unwell and so signed up for sick call again. Id. That time, Plaintiff saw Blake, a nurse practitioner, instead. Id. In response to Plaintiff's complaints, Blake increased the dosage of Plaintiff's cholesterol medication. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he continued to feel discomfort and every time he reported such symptoms to the health care unit, his dosage was increased. Id.

         On December 5, 2015, Plaintiff awoke in pain; he could not see out of his left eye or move his left arm. Id. He was admitted to the health care unit for observation and given pain medication. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff saw the eye doctor, who referred him to an outside specialist. Id. On January 6, 2016, Plaintiff was taken to the Marion Eye Center. Plaintiff was told that the artery behind his left eye was completely blocked, which caused his blindness. Id. Plaintiff is unlikely to regain the vision in his left eye. Id. Furthermore, damage was found in his right eye as well. Id.

         When Plaintiff returned to Shawnee, David ran a diagnostic test which revealed that Plaintiff was allergic to his cholesterol medication. Id. In addition to his vision problems, Plaintiff has experienced damage to his right arm, including his fingers, arm, and shoulder, and all the way up into his neck. Id.

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into 2 counts. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The following claim survives threshold review:

Count 1 - David and Blake were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical need in violation of the Eight Amendment when they persisted in prescribing the same cholesterol medication despite Plaintiff's repeated claims of ...

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.