Kyner v. Loveridge, 2:17-cv-00373-JMS-MJD
| Decision Date | 18 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:17-cv-00373-JMS-MJD,2:17-cv-00373-JMS-MJD |
| Parties | CHRIS KYNER, Plaintiff, v. BENJAMIN R. LOVERIDGE, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Plaintiff Chris Kyner's motion to amend and supplement original response brief, dkt. [83], is granted to the extent the Court shall construe the response brief to be a surreply. The Court appreciates Mr. Kyner's efforts to shorten his responsive brief. However, the Court does not appreciate Mr. Kyner's attempt to circumvent the page limits by shoehorning 25 additional pages by "adopt[ing] by reference the content [of] pages 3 thru 28 of Doc. 76," particularly where Mr. Kyner is merely repeating the "well-pleaded facts from Plaintiff's amended complaint," and these facts are already present in his amended complaint and did not need to be needlessly repeated in his brief. Nonetheless, the Court will review all briefing and relevant pleadings in its ruling.
Plaintiff Chris Kyner's amended complaint asserts that he injured his face in a fall when he was housed at the New Castle Correctional Facility and that he received constitutionally inadequate care for his injuries from the defendants.
The defendants move for partial judgment on the pleadings arguing that certain of Mr. Kyner's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
After the pleadings are closed but early enough not to delay trial, a defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings for reason that a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A motion for judgment on the pleadings is governed by the same standards as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 727-28 (7th Cir. 2014). The complaint must state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has factual plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A reviewing court draws all reasonable inferences and facts in favor of the non-movant, but need not accept as true any legal assertions. Vesely v. Armslist LLC, 762 F.3d 661, 664-65 (7th Cir. 2014).
Chris Kyner is currently incarcerated at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, but has sued certain medical providers based on care that he received while at the New Castle Correctional Facility. Those defendants are Dr. Loveridge, Deanna Hauri, Jane Gregory, Nicole Davis, Megan Miller, and Meranda Vicente. Mr. Kyner filed his original Complaint on August 3, 2017. In his original Complaint, he identified as defendants Dr. Loveridge, Deanna Hauri, Jane Gregory, Nicole Davis, and Meranda Vicente. On December 6, 2017, Mr. Kyner filed an amended complaint which added Megan Miller as a defendant.
The following facts are as pleaded in Mr. Kyner's amended complaint, dkt. 35, and are assumed to be true for the purposes of this Order only.
On June 9, 2015, Mr. Kyner slipped and fell on the right side of his face. As a result, several hard, jagged, and "unblunted" plastic objects were imbedded in his face, although he initially did not realize this. It was not until June 12, 2015, that Mr. Kyner noticed a small object in the right side of his jaw and some numbness on the right side of his face. On that day, he hand-delivered a health services request (HCRF #296247) to the nursing staff during rounds in his unit. He requested to be x-rayed as soon as possible and to have any objects removed.
By June 14, 2015, the numbness in Mr. Kyner's right face had expanded and he experienced swelling. He handed a request (HCRF #293789) seeking emergency medical care to Nurse Hauri on the evening of June 14, 2015, and verbally told her of his complaints. Nurse Hauri verbally acknowledged that Mr. Kyner had swelling and a possible infection in his face, but Nurse Hauri ignored the symptoms, and told him to submit another request if his condition worsened. After speaking with Nurse Hauri, Mr. Kyner alleges that he developed escalating pain in his right cheek and he had difficulty sleeping or lying down on the right side.
On June 15, 2015, Mr. Kyner attended a sick call appointment with a Nurse Vicente. He advised her of his symptoms, including the pain, and the presence of foreign objects in his face. He also told her he suspected an infection and requested pain medication and antibiotics. He again requested to receive an x-ray and have the objects removed from his face immediately. Nurse Vicente refused to physically examine him, but did feel around the upper and exterior portions of his right cheek while acknowledging the possible infection, swelling, and mobile objects in his right cheek. She denied his requests for pain medication and antibiotics and advised him he would be scheduled for "this Thursday" - June 18, 2015 - with the onsite practitioner.
Although he claims it was not accurately documented in the record, Mr. Kyner alleges his pain worsened with swelling and itching. He apparently did not see anyone on June 18, 2015, sohe submitted another request (HCRF #293799) for medical treatment. On June 23, 2015, Nurse Vicente responded to the request in writing, advising him that his appointment had been rescheduled to July 2, 2015. On June 22, 2015, Nurse Hauri had already verbally made this statement to Mr. Kyner as well. He continued to inform the nursing staff that he was experiencing pain, difficulty sleeping, and the inability to lie on the right side of his face. By June 27, 2015, Mr. Kyner's face had become very swollen, painful, numb, and itchy. He reported these issues to various nurses, and submitted another request (HCRF 294822). By June 29, 2015, the pain in his right side check was interfering with his ability to chew.
Dr. Loveridge saw Mr. Kyner on July 2, 2015. Mr. Kyner related to the doctor his history of injury, severe, ongoing pain, worsening numbness, and swelling since the night of June 14, 2015. During the physical evaluation, Dr. Loveridge felt an object in Mr. Kyner's right upper gums and another three centimeters under the right eye. These were mobile and tender to move. Dr. Loveridge noted that Mr. Kyner had atypical face pain, mild erythema, and edema. Mr. Kyner claims Dr. Loveridge also acknowledged a possible infection but did not note it in his records. Dr. Loveridge told Mr. Kyner he would be set for a "non-emergency" x-ray on Monday, July 6, 2015, but he would likely need to reopen the laceration and remove the object from under Mr. Kyner's eye. Dr. Loveridge planned to refer Mr. Kyner to the dentist to evaluate his gums and prescribed antibiotics, but denied Mr. Kyner pain medication. Antibiotics were administered to Mr. Kyner from July 3, 2015, through July 13, 2016.
On July 6, 2015, Nurse Vicente advised Mr. Kyner that he was scheduled for an x-ray that day. But when the officers came to take Mr. Kyner to the x-ray, he refused to suit up because his jump suit was filthy; instead, he requested a clean jumpsuit. The officers did not provide him a clean jumpsuit and told Nurse Vicente that Mr. Kyner refused the x-ray. Mr. Kyner attempted tocontact Nurse Vicente through correctional officers so he could receive the x-ray, but Nurse Vicente would not speak with him.
On July 8, 2015, Nurse Vicente told Mr. Kyner that she knew he wanted to speak with her, but she had wanted to go home and the correctional officers had already told her he refused to get an x-ray. Later that day, Mr. Kyner was taken for the x-ray. Dr. Loveridge also re-examined Mr. Kyner, felt the objects embedded in his face, and noted that the x-rays did not reveal their presence. He planned to schedule Mr. Kyner with a specialist. Dr. Loveridge also suggested a dental evaluation. A different doctor, Dr. Davis, performed a dental evaluation that same day and took a panoramic x-ray that did not reveal the presence of any foreign objects. Dr. Davis felt that oral surgery would be needed. Mr. Kyner advised Dr. Loveridge of the pain, numbness, swelling, and itching in his face, and difficulty chewing. He requested pain medication and stronger antibiotics, but Dr. Loveridge denied him pain medication because "another two weeks or so's nothing."
Dr. Loveridge submitted the outpatient request on July 9, 2015, and it was approved on July 14, 2015. Mr. Kyner complains that Nurse Vicente should have ensured that Dr. Loveridge saw him more promptly and that she should not have deferred to Dr. Loveridge's inadequate course of treatment. He raises the same complaint about Nurse Hauri.
On July 29, 2015, Mr. Kyner attended his outside consult with Dr. Alderman, who removed several foreign objects from his face. Dr. Alderman prescribed 600 mg of ibuprofen to Mr. Kyner, beginning July 29, 2015, and ending on August 5, 2015. In addition, Dr. Alderman prescribed the antibiotic amoxicillin 500 mg over the same period of time.
Mr. Kyner contends that beginning July 30, 2015, he was denied any pain medication, much less ibuprofen, and the nurses occasionally failed to give him the antibiotics. On August 5 or August 6, 2015, Nurse Vicente gave Mr. Kyner some Tylenol, but not the full amount. Sheignored his requests for the missing medication. Mr. Kyner reports that Dr. Loveridge knew as of July 29, 2015, that he required ibuprofen or something similar, but he did not provide it.
Mr. Kyner alleges that he filed grievances relating to the medical personnel's failure to provide him with proper medical care. Specifically, he asserts that he submitted two informal complaints...
To continue reading
Request your trial