Lippett v. Corizon Health, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-11175
| Decision Date | 03 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-cv-11175 |
| Parties | LEON LIPPETT, Plaintiff, v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; BETH CARTER, MD; DIANE HERRING; SHARON DRAVELING; LISA ADRAY; THOMAS JORDAN; MICHELLE PIECUCH, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Plaintiff Leon Lippett's left foot became infected in late June 2017. He made several attempts to seek treatment before health care personnel at Macomb Correctional Facility, where he was incarcerated, evaluated his condition. His infection worsened and he was sent to the hospital. He remained in the hospital for two months, had a failed skin graft surgery, and suffered permanent kidney damage. In this case he argues that several Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) nurses, an MDOC corrections officer, and a doctor provided by Corizon Health, Inc. (Corizon) were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by denying him immediate treatment on several occasions on June 27 and 28, and by failing to send him to the hospital when he was first treated, on June 28. Plaintiff Lippett also argues that the MDOC defendants were grossly negligent. The MDOC defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment, as have Defendants Dr. Beth Carter and Corizon Health Inc. (ECF Nos. 47, 56.)
Plaintiff "agrees to dismiss Corizon" so the Court grants summary judgment to Defendant Corizon and dismisses Lippett's claim against Corizon. (ECF No. 61, Response to Corizon, PgID 1749 n. 5.) The Court also grants summary judgment to Defendants Beth Carter, Diane Herring, Sharon Draveling, Thomas Jordan, and Michelle Piecuch because Plaintiff Lippett has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that any of these defendants took action that rose to the level of violating Lippett's constitutional rights or that they were grossly negligent. The Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant Lisa Adray was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff Lippett's serious medical needs, so the Court denies the MDOC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment to the extent that it seeks dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Adray. (ECF No. 56.)
Because this is a Motion for Summary Judgment, the following facts are recounted in the light most favorable to the non-moving party—here, Plaintiff Leon Lippett. See Moran v. Al Basit LLC, 788 F.3d 201, 204 (6th Cir. 2015).
On the morning of June 25, 2017, Plaintiff Lippett's second toe on his left foot started "hurting really bad." (ECF No. 61-3, Lippett Dep., PgID 1867.) When he looked at the toe he noticed that it was swollen. (Id.) He thought these symptoms were related to his ongoing problem with athlete's foot and did not seek treatment. (Id.) The following day, the toe continued to swell and the pain got worse. (Id. at PgID 1868.) He decided to seek treatment.
As a prisoner in the Macomb Correctional Facility, Lippett had two options—if he believed he had an urgent or emergent health condition he could notify a prison staff member who would be required to contact health care services and explain the problem, or, for a more routine health care service, he could fill out a Health Care Request (kite) and leave it in a box to be picked up by a nurse that night. (ECF No. 61-2, MDOC Policy Directive 03.04.100, PgID 1773.) Health care service staff members are required to respond to staff contacts about urgent conditions within two hours and are required to triage a kite within one business day of receiving it. (Id.) Generally, the night shift nurses pick up each day's kites from the boxes spread throughout the facility and review them during the course of their shift. (ECF No.61-4, Cooper Dep., PgID 2034; see also ECF No. 61-4, Herring Dep., PgID 2075.) Based on the information in the kite, the reviewing nurse will evaluate the urgency of the condition and schedule an appointment accordingly. (ECF No. 61-4, Cooper Dep., PgID 2034.) If the nurse determines that the kite describes an emergency, the prisoner must be seen immediately; if the kite describes an urgent condition, the nurse must schedule an appointment "no later than the next business day." (ECF No. 61-2, MDOC Policy Directive 03.04.100, PgID 1773.)
Lippett filled out a kite the morning of June 26th. (ECF No. 61-3, Lippett Dep., PgID 1867.) He wrote, (ECF No. 61-2, Kite, PgID 1759.) The kite was stamped as received by health services at 10:41 PM on June 26. (ECF No. 61-2, Kite, PgID 1759.)
At 6:17 AM on June 27, Defendant Nurse Herring reviewed Lippett's kite and scheduled him for a "nurse sick call" for June 28. (ECF No. 61-2, Kite Response, PgID 1761.) She stated that she scheduled him for the 28th instead of the 27th because the schedule for the 27th would have already been completed by 6:17 in the morning and she considered Lippett's complaint—an infected foot—a situation that required health care attention within "a day or two," not an emergency like a report of chest pain. (ECF No. 61-4, Herring Dep., PgID 2075-77.) Health Unit Manager(HUM) Cooper agreed with Nurse Herring that infections are urgent, not emergent, situations. (ECF No. 61-4, Cooper Dep., PgID 2044.) The kite was returned to Lippett with instructions to "please wait for health care call out." (ECF No. 61-2, Kite, PgID 1759.)
Lippett's condition worsened over the course of June 27th. His foot continued to swell and he began to feel sick, experiencing chills and feeling feverish at times. (ECF No. 61-3, Lippett Dep., PgID 1868.) He was still able to wear his shoe and attend his call out in the school building. (Id. at PgID 1868-69.) His bunkmate, Corey Crews, who had seen Lippett's swollen toe the night before and "thought nothing of it," recalled Lippett complaining that he was cold, then complaining that he was hot. (ECF No. 61-3, Crews Dep., PgID 1936-37.) Crews said Lippett was not himself—sweating, complaining and skipping a special meal though he normally loves to eat—and by the evening of the 27th Crews no longer thought that "it was no big deal." (Id. at 1937.)
At 6:30 PM on the 27th, Lippett decided to seek immediate medical treatment. (ECF No. 61-3, Lippett Dep., PgID 1868-69.) He asked the yard supervisor if he could walk to health care to have his infection assessed. (Id. at PgID 1869.) The yard supervisor agreed and found an officer to escort Lippett to health care. (Id.) As soon as Lippett arrived and before anyone in health services was able to see him, a siren rang out and Lippett had to return to his unit for an emergency count. (Id.) Thecorrections officer logbook confirms that a "mobilization" began at 7:10 PM and lasted until 10:08 PM. (ECF No. 61-2, Logbook, PgID 1792-93.)
When the lockdown was over, Lippett got the attention of the first officer he saw, Officer Yung. (ECF No. 61-3, Lippett Dep., PgID 1870.) Lippett told Officer Yung that he had an infection and needed to see medical services. (Id.) Lippett remembered Officer Yung getting on the phone with health care and being told that they were unable to see Lippett at that time. (Id.) Lippett then asked if he could join the nightly "med lines," where health care personnel hand out regularly prescribed medicines, to which Officer Yung said yes. (Id. at PgID 1871.) Officer Yung recalled Lippett showing him his "swollen and discolored" foot, agreeing that Lippett's foot needed medical attention, and then sending Lippett to join the med lines. (ECF No. 47-5, Yung Dep., PgID 831, 833.)
Once he was in the med lines, Lippett was seen by a nurse, who took his temperature and looked at his foot. (ECF No. 61-3, Lippett Dep., PgID 1871-72.) The nurse said that his temperature was 101 and "acknowledged that [Lippett's] foot was in bad shape," but told him that the only thing that she could do for him was to give him Tylenol. (Id. at PgID 1872.) Lippett testified that the nurse who saw him was Nurse Herring, (id. at PgID 1871), but Nurse Herring said that she was not working the night of June 27th. (ECF No. 61-4, Herring Dep., PgID 2095-96.) Hertimesheet shows that she punched out at 9:03 AM on June 27th and did not punch in again until 3:06 PM on June 28th. (ECF No. 45-14, Herring Timesheet, PgID 754.)
That night, Lippett was unable to fall asleep due to the pain in his foot. (ECF No. 61-3, Lippett Dep., PgID 1873.) So, at 12:30 AM he went to the desk in his housing unit and asked Officer Markus to send him back to health care. (Id.) Officer Markus agreed and sent him over with an officer escort. (Id.) At health care, Lippett said that Nurse Herring and Defendant Nurse Draveling told him they could not help him even though he "literally begged them for some help." (Id. at PgID 1874.) However, neither Nurse Herring nor Nurse Draveling were on duty the night of June 27th. (ECF No. 45-14, Draveling & Herring Timesheets, PgID 753-754.) Officer Markus did not recall interacting with Lippett or sending him to health care on the night of June 27th. (ECF No. 61-3, Markus Dep., PgID 1992-93.) Lippett's bunkmate, Crews, remembered Lippett saying that he went to health care in the middle of the night but that they refused to see him. (ECF No. 61-3, Crews Dep., PgID 1937.)
When Lippett woke up the morning of June 28th, he had a kite response waiting on his desk, which informed him that he had a health care call out at 9:30 AM. (ECF No. 61-3, Lippett Dep., PgID 1877.) So, at 9:30 he made his...
To continue reading
Request your trial