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.

Wilsonn v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 11, 2018

RECO WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., UTILIZATION MANAGEMENT UNIT, RITZ, GARCIA, REDNOUR, K. BUTLER, B. NWASBASI, J. TROST, M. MOLDENHAUER, and GAIL WALLS Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE, U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff Reco Wilson, an inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”), brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that occurred at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). Plaintiff money requests 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).

         Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         In March 2011, Plaintiff developed a small, painful lump over his spine, and began to seek medical treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 4). He saw Dr. Nwasbasi on June 22, 2011. Id. Dr. Nwasbasi thought the lump might be a lipoma; he prescribed Motrin and scheduled a follow-up visit within 2 months. (Doc. 1, p. 5).

         Plaintiff had a follow-up visit with Dr. Nwasbasi on August 25, 2011, during which Dr. Nwasbasi noted that the lump had not increased in size. Id. Plaintiff alleges Dr. Nwasbasi should have conducted tests to determine if the lump was cancerous or surgically removed the lump, but Dr. Nwasbasi refused to do either. Id. Plaintiff submitted an emergency grievance to Defendant Rednour on August 29, 2011, but Rednour did not acknowledge or respond to the grievance. Id. The lump caused Plaintiff constant pain and continued to grow. (Doc. 1, p. 6).

         Plaintiff saw Dr. Moldenhauer for the lump sometime after November 21, 2014, and Dr. Moldenhauer refused to order an MRI. Id. Instead, he referred Plaintiff to Dr. Trost. Id.

         Dr. Trost saw Plaintiff on December 15, 2014. (Doc. 1, p. 7). He also refused to schedule an MRI for Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff submitted an emergency grievance regarding Dr. Trost's refusal to Defendant Butler on December 18, 2014. Id. Butler did not respond or acknowledge the grievance. Id. Plaintiff filed a second emergency grievance with the same result. (Doc. 1, p. 8).

         Plaintiff next sought care for his lump from non-defendant Tindall on January 3, 2016. Id.

         Plaintiff received an x-ray of his thoracic and lumbar spine on January 11, 2017, and an ultrasound on February 14, 2017. Id. Non-defendant Dr. Siddiqui referred Plaintiff for an MRI, but Ritz denied the referral on April 11, 2017, in favor of a conservative treatment plan of monitoring, analgesics, and activity modification. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9).

         Dr. Siddiqui re-submitted Plaintiff for an MRI on May 4, 2017, but Defendant Garcia denied the referral. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Walls made the final decision to approve or deny treatment in both instances. Id. Plaintiff ultimately received an MRI ...


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.