Hampton v. Wetzel
| Decision Date | 10 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-1367 |
| Parties | SHAWN HAMPTON, Plaintiff v. JOHN WETZEL, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Chief Judge Conner)
Plaintiff Shawn Hampton ("Hampton"), an inmate currently confined at the Rockview State Correctional Institution in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Rockview"), commenced this action on July 17, 2014 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The matter is proceeding via an amended complaint, wherein Hampton alleges that defendants' failure to provide him adequate medical services violated his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the Rehabilitation Act. (Doc. 13). Remaining defendants are Wetzel, Williams, Harpster, Glunt and McHenry (collectively, "Commonwealth defendants"), and Bernard and Koltay, physician assistants at SCI-Rockview.1
Before the court is a motion (Doc. 71) for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by the Commonwealth defendants, and a motion (Doc. 73) for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by defendants Bernard and Koltay. For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant both motions.
Through summary adjudication, the court may dispose of those claims that do not present a "genuine dispute as to any material fact" and for which a jury trial would be an empty and unnecessary formality. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). The burden of proof tasks the non-moving party to come forth with "affirmative evidence, beyond the allegations of the pleadings," in support of its right to relief. Pappas v. City of Lebanon, 331 F. Supp. 2d 311, 315 (M.D. Pa. 2004); FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). This evidence must be adequate, as a matter of law, to sustain a judgment in favor of the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-57 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-89 (1986). Only if this threshold is met may the cause of action proceed. Pappas, 331 F. Supp. 2d at 315.
Hampton has been incarcerated at SCI-Rockview since May 2007. (Doc. 72 ¶ 1; Doc. 89 ¶ 1). Hampton has ostensibly suffered from low back pain for several years. (Doc. 72 ¶ 2; Doc. 89 ¶ 2).
Hampton first presented to sick call with complaints of back pain on May 6, 2010. (Doc. 74 ¶ 4). On examination, the medical provider noted that Hampton had full strength and found no non-anatomical tenderness. (Id.) The medical provider ordered an x-ray of the lumbar spine. (Id.) The x-ray revealed mild degenerative disc disease at the lumbosacral joint. (Id.)
On June 23, 2010, Hampton presented to sick call with complaints of left wrist pain after scooping oatmeal. (Id. at ¶ 5). He reported that the pain was exacerbated by dorsi-flexion exercises, and ibuprofen did not relieve his pain. (Id.) Examination revealed full range of motion and strength. (Id.) The medical provider diagnosedHampton with left wrist pain and possible tendonitis and recommended that he continue taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications ("NSAIDs"). (Id.) Hampton returned to sick call on July 12, 2010, again complaining of left wrist pain. (Id. ¶ 6). During this visit, Hampton treated with physician assistant ("PA") Julie Pensiero. (Id.) Hampton reported that his pain improved when he stopped the repetitive job of scooping and began wrapping his wrist with an ACE bandage. (Id.) An examination of Hampton's wrist revealed full range of motion and full strength. (Id.) PA Pensiero diagnosed left wrist pain with possible overuse syndrome and recommended that Hampton continue using the ACE wrap. (Id.)
On August 24, 2010, Hampton presented to sick call requesting a bottom bunk due to low back pain. (Id. ¶ 7). He denied a recent injury to his back. (Id.) He stated that the only prior injuries to his back occurred when he fell down a flight of stairs when he was ten years old and thirteen years old. (Id.) Hampton reported that he was taking Motrin for pain, which he purchased from the commissary. (Id.) PA Pensiero examined Hampton and noted that he was able to ambulate without difficulty, exhibited no muscle spasms, had full range of motion and strength, and was able to move without pain. (Id.) PA Pensiero found no indication for a bottom bunk. (Id.) PA Pensiero ordered Hampton a back brace and encouraged him to perform stretching and range of motion exercises. (See id.) Hampton received the back brace on September 1, 2010. (Id. ¶ 8).
Hampton next complained of back pain on February 1, 2011, after a reported fall. (Id. ¶ 9). Nurse B. Dunlap treated Hampton, and noted that examination was unremarkable and Hampton did not appear to be in distress. (Id.) Nurse Dunlapadvised Hampton to rest and gave him Motrin for pain. (Id.) Shortly thereafter, on February 24, 2011, while on a hunger strike, Hampton was evaluated by Nurse Robert Somich. (Id. ¶ 10). Hampton told Nurse Somich: "All I want is bottom bunk." (Id.) He reported that he would eat once given a bottom bunk restriction. (Id.) Hampton was also seen by a PA, who reviewed his most recent x-ray and observed that it revealed only mild degenerative disc disease. (Id.) Therefore, the PA did not believe that a bottom bunk restriction was medically necessary. (Id.) Although the record on this point is unclear, Hampton did receive a bottom bunk restriction at some point after the February 2011 visit. (See Doc. 74 ¶ 11; see also Doc. 72 ¶ 4; Doc. 89 ¶ 4).
In September 2012, Hampton requested to have his activity restrictions lifted so that he could go to the gym to exercise and adhere to his treatment program. (Doc. 72 ¶ 3; Doc. 89 ¶ 3). The Commonwealth defendants aver that medical staff offered to lift Hampton's physical restrictions, but he declined the offer because he did not want to lose his bottom bunk status and extra pillows. (See Doc. 72 ¶ 4; Doc. 89 ¶ 4). Hampton explains that he did not want to sign off on all restrictions because "ALL of them were not the problem." (Doc. 89 ¶ 4).
Hampton next presented to sick call on January 28, 2013 and was seen by defendant Bernard. (Doc. 74 ¶ 11). Hampton requested to sign up for "rehab gym." (Id.) Bernard advised Hampton that if his activity restrictions were lifted, his bottom bunk restriction and double pillow order would likely be discontinued. (Id.) Hampton did not want to change his housing accommodations, and his restrictionsremained the same. (Id.) On April 17, 2013, medical staff issued Hampton his first back brace, with a review date of October 17, 2013. (Doc. 72 ¶ 5; Doc. 89 ¶ 5).
On September 4, 2013, Hampton submitted a sick call for a replacement back brace and treated with defendant Koltay. (Doc. 74 ¶ 12). Hampton reported that the brace provided him with pain relief and that, with the brace, he had less need for NSAIDs. (Id.) After examination, Koltay ordered Hampton a new back brace. (Id.) Staff issued a replacement back brace to Hampton on September 18, 2013, with a reevaluation date of March 18, 2014. (Doc. 72 ¶ 6; Doc. 89 ¶ 6).
On October 7, 2013, Hampton filed grievance number 480803, wherein he complained that his restrictions were not up to date in the prison computer. (Doc. 72 ¶ 7; Doc. 89 ¶ 7). Hampton requested that his restrictions be updated to include no repetitive motion so that his work supervisors would know which duties he was able to perform. (Id.) The grievance officer denied Hampton's initial grievance and found that the restrictions noted in the computer were correct and no doctor ever ordered "no repetitive motion" of the hands. (Doc. 72-1 at 347). Hampton appealed to the Facility Manager, seeking compensation for pain suffered "when forced to do things that cause [him] pain." (Doc. 72 ¶ 8; Doc. 89 ¶ 8; Doc. 72-1 at 346). The Facility Manager denied the appeal. (Doc. 72-1 at 345). The institution's findings were thereafter upheld on final review. (Doc. 72-1 at 342-44).
On October 11, 2013, Hampton returned to sick call and was again seen by defendant Koltay. (Doc. 74 ¶ 13). Hampton requested a clarification regarding his medical restrictions. (Id.) He reported that corrections officers told him that he was not allowed to have carpal tunnel braces. (Id.) Hampton therefore wanted tohave this equipment verified. (Id.) Koltay wrote an order with an instruction to "confirm [that] carpal tunnel braces are included in patient's equipment list." (Id.)
On November 6, 2013, Hampton was seen by defendant Bernard in sick call. (Doc. 74 ¶ 14; see Doc. 72 ¶ 9; Doc. 89 ¶ 9; Doc. 72-1 at 72). Hampton complained that he was unhappy with his new back brace because it was not tight enough. (Doc. 74 ¶ 14). Upon examination, Bernard noted that Hampton was not wearing the brace correctly and instructed him how to use the brace properly. (Id.; see Doc. 72 ¶ 9; Doc. 89 ¶ 9; Doc. 72-1 at 72). Bernard noted that there was no need to replace the brace at that time. (Doc. 74 ¶ 14). Hampton contends that he was not wearing the brace incorrectly. (Doc. 89 ¶ 9). On November 19, 2013, defendant Koltay wrote a renewed instruction reminding the nurses to include the carpal tunnel braces and back brace in Hampton's equipment list. (Doc. 74 ¶ 15).
Defendant Koltay next saw Hampton on January 21, 2014, for complaints of pain due to carpal tunnel syndrome. (Id. ¶ 16). Hampton stated that he recently started a new job involving repetitive movement. (Id.) He further stated that he was never issued carpal tunnel braces. (Id.) Hampton reported bilateral pain that was greater in his dominant right wrist. (Id.) Koltay noted no recent complaints of carpal tunnel syndrome and ordered a trial of wrist splints. (Id.; see Doc. 72 ¶ 10; Doc. 89 ¶ 10). Koltay also updated Hampton's medical restrictions to reflect that Hampton should avoid activities with repetitive motion. (Id.) On February 7, 2014, wrist splints...
To continue reading
Request your trial