Benford v. Corr. Med. Servs.
| Decision Date | 06 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:11CV121 JAR |
| Parties | TERRY LEWIS BENFORD, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for "Summary Judgment" Rule 56 of the F.R.C.P.--Memorandum of Law ("Plaintiff's Motion;" ECF No.77), the Motion for Summary Judgment of Gregory Rakestraw, D.O. (ECF No. 80), and the Motion for Summary Judgment of Dunklin County, Missouri, Willie Moore, Bob Holder, Billy Harper, and Rod Hargrove (ECF No. 82).1
On November 14, 2009, Plaintiff Terry Lewis Benford ("Plaintiff") was incarcerated in the Dunklin County Justice Center (the "Jail") for misuse of 911. (Defendants Dunklin County, Missouri, Willie Moore, Bob Holder, Billy Harper and Rob Hargrove's Material Facts Claimed to be Undisputed (hereinafter "Dunklin Facts"), ECF No. 82, pp. 2-44, ¶8). He was a convicted misdemeanant and serving a six month sentence. (Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment of Dunklin County, Missouri, Willie Moore, Bob Holder, Billy Harper and Rod Hargrove ("Dunklin Memorandum"), ECF No. 83, p. 3). Plaintiff also had been arrested and chargedwith burglary in the first degree and assault on a police officer. (Id.). Plaintiff was placed in the F pod, the misdemeanor unit at the Jail. (Dunklin Facts, ¶9).
On January 14, 2010, Plaintiff was involved in an altercation with another inmate, pretrial detainee Jauntrell Harris. (Dr. Rakestraw's Material Facts Claimed to be Undisputed (hereinafter "Rakestraw Facts"), ECF No. 80, pp. 1-5, ¶5; Dunklin Facts, Plaintiff Amended Opposition Response in Memorandum of Law to the Defendant(s) Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56, F.R.C.P. ("Opposition"), ECF No. 94, p. 4). After the fight, Plaintiff was taken to Twin Rivers Regional Medical Center ("Twin Rivers") via ambulance. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶6; Dunklin Facts, ¶14). At Twin Rivers, x-rays were taken of Plaintiff's left shoulder and knee. The x-rays showed no fractures, and a CT scan of Plaintiff's head showed no abnormalities. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶7; Dunklin Facts, ¶¶15-16; ECF No. 84-2). After being treated at Twin Rivers for three to four hours, Plaintiff returned to the Jail. (Dunklin Facts, ¶18). When Plaintiff returned to the Jail, he was placed in a wheelchair. (Dunklin Facts, ¶19). Thereafter, Billy Hopper2 placed Plaintiff in the drunk tank, which consisted of a concrete slab, toilet and sink. (Id.). Plaintiff claims that he was placed in the drunk tank as punishment for the incident with the other inmate, and not for any safety reasons. (Plaintiff's Motion, ¶8).
On January 15, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a Sick Call Request Form. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶8). Plaintiff requested treatment for his left knee and dizziness; the Sick Call Request Form did not mention Plaintiff's left shoulder. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶9). Dr. Gregory Rakestraw, a licensed doctor of osteopathic medicine and employee of Advanced Correctional Healthcare ("ACH"), examined Plaintiff on January 15, 2010. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶¶1, 10; Dunklin Facts, ¶¶6, 20). Through his examination of Plaintiff, Dr. Rakestraw determined that Plaintiff had a left knee sprain and musclecontusion. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶10). Dr. Rakestraw prescribed Tylenol for five days, bed rest for forty-eight (48) hours, and follow-up as necessary. (Id.; Dunklin Facts, ¶21). Dr. Rakestraw does not recall Plaintiff complaining of left shoulder pain on January 15, 2010, and his notes do not reflect any such complaints. (Rakestraw Facts,
On January 29, 2010, Dr. Rakestraw again examined Plaintiff and suspected that Plaintiff had a left knee lateral meniscus injury. (Id., ¶13). Plaintiff asked for an MRI, but the Jail did not have an MRI machine. (Id., ¶¶14-15). Plaintiff indicated that his mother would pay for an MRI, and Dr. Rakestraw authorized Plaintiff to obtain an MRI, pending approval of Jail officials. (Id., ¶16; ECF No. 84-5).3 Plaintiff's transfer to receive medical care had to be approved by Jail authorities. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶17).
On February 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed a grievance because Dr. Rakestraw had not made arrangements for him to obtain an MRI. (ECF No. 84-6; Dunklin Facts, ¶27). Plaintiff stated that his knee was causing him severe pain. (ECF No. 84-6). Rod Hargrove, the jail administrator at the Jail, responded that the Jail would take Plaintiff to obtain an MRI at Plaintiff's expense. (Id.; Dunklin Facts, ¶2). Hargrove noted that the injury was self-inflicted and not life threatening. (ECF No. 84-6). On February 5, 2010, Plaintiff was presented to Judge Speilman for the purpose of obtaining a thirty-day release from the Jail to allow Plaintiff to seek medical care at his own expense. (Opposition, p. 6). On that date, the Jail released Plaintiff on his own recognizance. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶18; Dunklin Facts, ¶25).
On February 8, 2010, Dr. Thornton saw Plaintiff at the Missouri Delta Medical Center. (Dunklin Facts, ¶¶28-29). Dr. Thornton examined Plaintiff's knee and shoulder, gave Plaintiff anelastic brace for his knee, and a prescription for pain. (Dunklin Facts, ¶29). On February 9, 2010, Dr. Thornton again saw Plaintiff and gave him a shot for pain in his knee and shoulder. (Dunklin Facts, ¶30). On February 18, 2010, Dr. Thornton gave Plaintiff more shots and a prescription for pain relief. (Dunklin Facts, ¶33).
On February 26, 2010, Plaintiff was re-arrested on a misdemeanor stealing charge and returned to Jail. (Opposition, p. 6; Rakestraw Facts, ¶19; Dunklin Facts, ¶32; Plaintiff's Motion, ¶17). During Dr. Rakestraw's February 26, 2010 examination of him, Plaintiff told Dr. Rakestraw that he had been seen by a physician while he was released from the Jail and that his physician diagnosed torn cartilage in his knee, which was what Dr. Rakestraw previously suspected. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶¶20, 21).4 Dr. Rakestraw noted that Plaintiff's knee was unchanged since his January 29, 2010 examination. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶22). Plaintiff claimed that he did not obtain an MRI while he was out of Jail because he could not afford it. (Dunklin Facts, ¶39).
Plaintiff asserts that he was provided a wheelchair upon his arrival and booking at the Jail. (Plaintiff's Motion, ¶18). Plaintiff also had a walking cane. (Id.). According to Plaintiff, wheelchairs and walking canes are not permitted in the Jail because they have metal parts. (Id.). Dr. Rakestraw had not prescribed a wheelchair for Plaintiff. (Dunklin Facts, ¶35). In keeping with the purported policy against wheelchairs and canes, on February 28, 2010, Plaintiff was asked to give up his wheelchair and cane. (Dunklin Facts, ¶36: Plaintiff's Motion, ¶22).5 When Plaintiff refused to give up his wheelchair and cane, Plaintiff grabbed the wheelchair and would not let go. (Dunklin Facts, ¶36; Plaintiff's Motion, ¶22). After Defendants asked Plaintiff to let go of thewheelchair four times, Hargrove ordered Moore6 and Hopper to remove him from the wheelchair. (Plaintiff's Motion, ¶23). Plaintiff was sprayed with mace, taken out of the wheelchair, and placed in the drunk tank for two hours. (Opposition, pp. 6-7; Dunklin Facts, ¶36; Plaintiff's Motion, ¶23).
On March 2, 2010, Plaintiff fell in court. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶25; Opposition, p. 7). Plaintiff returned to the Jail and remained in the medical infirmary until his transfer from the Jail on March 29, 2010. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶25). Plaintiff claims that he was "never provided any further medical care" after being place in the medical infirmary. (Opposition, p. 7).
On March 15, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a Sick Call Request Form, asking to be seen by "Doctor/Nurse" and indicating that he wanted medication for pain. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶23; Dunklin Facts, ¶34). On March 15, 2010, a licensed practical nurse examined Plaintiff, decided to continue monitoring Plaintiff, and ordered no strenuous exercise. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶24). The nurse contacted Dr. Rakestraw, who concurred with the treatment plan. (Id.).
On March 24, 2010, Plaintiff pled guilty to the felony charge of assault of a law enforcement officer, and received a six year sentence. (Dunklin Facts, ¶37; Opposition, p. 7). On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff was transferred to the Department of Corrections in Bonne Tere, Missouri. (Dunklin Facts, ¶38). Plaintiff claims that the Missouri Department of Corrections Medical/Mental Health unit diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder, arthritis in his left knee and left shoulder, and possible internal ligament damage. (Opposition, p. 7).
Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he has not had surgery on his left knee or shoulder. (Rakestraw Facts, ¶27). An MRI on Plaintiff's knee in February 2011 showed that Plaintiff suffers from rheumatoid arthritis in his knee, and did not indicate any other injury. (Id.).
The Court may grant a motion for summary judgment if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Citrate, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). The substantive law determines which facts are critical and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome will properly preclude summary judgment. Id. Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
A moving party always bears the burden of informing the Court of the basis of its motion. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a dispute...
To continue reading
Request your trial