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.

Laktas v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 20, 2019

STANISLAUS LAWRENCE LAKTAS, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., DR. VIPIN SHAH, DR. MICHAEL SCOTT, DR. ALBERTO BUTALID, CHRISTINE BROWN, DR. RODERICK MATTICKS, and LOUIS SHICKER,[1] Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 69), which recommends that the Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Exhaustion filed by Defendants Dr. Alberto Butalid, Dr. Roderick Matticks, Dr. Michael Scott, Dr. Vipin Shah, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. be denied and the Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion filed by Defendants Christine Brown and Louis Shicker be granted in part and denied in part.

         The Report and Recommendation was entered on March 29, 2019. Defendants Dr. Butalid, Dr. Matticks, Dr. Scott, Dr. Shah, and Wexford have filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 70). Plaintiff Stanislaus Lawrence Laktas (“Laktas”) has filed a Response to that Objection (Doc. 71).

         Background

         Laktas, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), was incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”) at the time he initiated this action. Laktas proceeds on the following counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Shah, Dr. Scott, and Dr. Butalid, for failing to provide treatment for Laktas's pain, including failing to request servicing of his implanted neurostimulation device;
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Shah, Dr. Scott, Dr. Butalid, and Dr. Matticks for failing to refer Laktas for carpal tunnel surgery;
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Wexford for failing to have Laktas's implant serviced, and for delaying and failing to approve Laktas's recommended carpal tunnel surgery;
Count 4: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Brown and Shicker, for failing to take any action to assist Laktas in obtaining pain relief or servicing of his neurostimulation implant after Laktas wrote to them about the other Defendants' lack of care; and against Shicker for failing to take action regarding Laktas's need for carpal tunnel surgery.

         On January 28, 2019, Defendants Dr. Butalid, Dr. Matticks, Dr. Scott, Dr. Shah, and Wexford (the “Wexford Defendants”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Docs. 56 and 57) arguing that Laktas's grievances were untimely and the continuing violation doctrine does not apply. On February 13, 2019, Defendants Brown and Shicker filed Motion for Summary Judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Docs. 61 and 62) arguing that Laktas did not specifically name them in the grievances and the grievances he filed were untimely.

         The Report and Recommendation

         Judge Daly recommends denying the motion for summary judgment filed by the Wexford Defendants and granting in part and denying in part the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Brown and Shicker. Judge Daly found the following grievances to be relevant to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies: December 29, 2014 grievance; December 31, 2015 grievance; and February 11, 2018 grievance.

         Judge Daly noted that all of these grievances were denied by the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) as untimely because they were submitted outside the 60-day timeframe outlined in Department Rule 504. Judge Daly found that, because Laktas was complaining of the ongoing denial of medical treatment, the continuing violation doctrine does not require that he file a grievance within 60 days of the first violation, rather a grievance can be filed at any time, as long as the violation continues. Because the alleged violations were continual, Judge Daly concluded that the grievances filed on December 29, 2014, December 31, 2015, and February 11, 2018 were timely filed. Thus, she recommends denying summary judgment as to the Wexford Defendants.

         Judge Daly recognized, however, that Defendant Shicker was not named or identified in any of these grievances. Thus, she recommends granting summary judgment as to Defendant Shicker based on ...


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.