Martinez v. Wexford Health Servs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:18-cv-50164 |
| Parties | Martin Martinez, Plaintiff, v. Wexford Health Services, Inc., Cathy Smith, Dr. Tim Chamberlain, Amber Allen, Dr. Jill Wahl, Dr. Arthur Davida, Correctional Officer Tyler Horner, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Honorable Iain D. Johnston
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the complaint, not to determine whether a plaintiff will win the case. Here, Martinez, through recruited counsel, clears this hurdle as to some defendants and not others. Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss [114] is denied in part and granted in part. Whether Martinez's remaining claims will survive a summary judgment motion is left for another day.
* * *
On October 21, 2020, Plaintiff Martin Martinez filed a third-amended complaint suing Wexford Health Sources, Inc. ("Wexford"), Amber Allen, Cathy Smith, Dr. Tim Chamberlain, Dr. Jill Wahl, Dr. Arthur Davida, and Correctional Officer Tyler Horner. Dkt. 111.
Wexford is a private corporation that has contracted with the Illinois Department of Corrections to provide its inmates with medical care. Id. ¶ 14. Cathy Smith was the individual responsible for scheduling, coordinating, and managing offsite medical procedures. This included inmate transportation. Id. ¶ 15. Dr. Tim Chamberlain was a Wexford-employed physician that was heavily involved in Martinez's medical care during his incarceration. Id. ¶ 16. Dr. Jill Wahl and Dr. Arthur Davida were also Wexford-employed physicians. Id. ¶¶ 18-19.
Martinez alleges that these Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights and conspired to violate the same. Defendants Amber Allen and Tyler Horner filed an answer to the third-amended complaint. Dkt. 123. Defendants Wexford, Dr. Tim Chamberlain, Dr. Jill Wahl, Dr. Arthur Davida, and Cathy Smith filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state claim. Dkt. 114.
Plaintiff Martin Martinez was incarcerated with the Illinois Department of Corrections at the Dixon Correctional Center in 2007. He was then released in October 2018. Dkt. 111, ¶ 1. In 2009, during this incarceration, Martinez injured his knee, requiring surgery. Id. ¶¶ 2, 23. That surgery occurred in April 2011, but Martinez continued to suffer from knee pain even after the surgery. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. A few months later, in December 2011, Martinez's orthopedic surgeon recommended he return for additional treatment if his pain was not resolved through physical therapy. The pain did not improve. Id. ¶ 25. The alleged timeline is a bit confusing. But the reasonable inference is that Martinez's specialist recommended a follow-upvisit. Still, follow-up care was delayed until September 2012, and even then, Martinez was not sent to the requesting physician. Id.
The physician that Martinez saw in September 2012 referred him to another physician and recommended that this be done within three or four weeks. Id. ¶ 26. That did not happen. Instead, Martinez was not afforded the recommended care for five months—on April 8, 2013. Id. At that time, Martinez was examined by Dr. Chmell, who recommended an MRI, which would be followed up with a post-MRI examination. Id. ¶ 27. Despite Dr. Chmell's assessment and recommended treatment, Martinez was not afforded the MRI for another six months, in October 2013. Id. ¶ 28. Even then, Martinez was not provided the results of the MRI until March 2014, almost a year after the MRI was ordered. Id. On review of the MRI, Dr. Chmell explained that Martinez might require a knee replacement surgery, but in the meantime, the best course of action was physical therapy, a cortisone injection, and a follow-up examination in six months. Id.
Six months came and went with no follow-up examination. Martinez was not afforded his examination with Dr. Chmell until June 22, 2015, fifteen months after the last visit and nine months later than Dr. Chmell had ordered. Id. ¶ 29. During this delayed visit, Dr. Chmell examined Martinez's knee and recommended another surgery. He scheduled that surgery for September 22, 2015 and advised that Martinez needed to return within thirty days of surgery for a pre-surgical assessment. Id. ¶ 29. Again, that did not happen. For some reason, Martinez wasnot transported to the appointment. Id. ¶ 30. Because he missed the pre-surgical assessment, the surgery had to be postponed.
Because of the delay, his pre-surgical assessment did not occur until October 26, 2015. The surgery then was scheduled for December 29, 2015, and another pre-surgical assessment was required within the thirty-day window. Id. ¶ 31. Again, that did not happen. This series of events continued; Martinez was again scheduled for surgery, this time on June 21, 2016, with another pre-surgical visit required. Id. ¶ 32. Though the pain persisted, so did the delays; these dates were again missed. Id. ¶ 34. Martinez alleges that he asked about the surgery schedule multiple times between December 2015 and July 2016. Each time, he was "advised that it was in process and that appointments were being made, despite surgery being scheduled on three prior occasions and Defendants' failure to follow the recommendations" of Martinez's specialty physicians. Id. ¶ 35. For reasons not known to the Court, Defendants' wrote Martinez a disciplinary ticket when he continued asking for a written explanation why they repeatedly failed to transport him to these recommended medical appointments. Id.
Finally, Martinez was afforded his pre-surgical visit and received the recommended surgery on August 18, 2016; nearly a year after the originally scheduled date. Id. ¶ 37. Throughout this delay, Martinez continued to suffer pain in his knee. Still, the medical team failed to adjust his medication to deal with the pain.
Unfortunately for Martinez, the pain continued after his surgery. And he was not afforded a post-operative follow-up examination until two months after the surgery—on November 14, 2016. There, the specialist gave Martinez a cortisone injection and recommended a follow-up examination in three months. Id. ¶ 39. But, again, that did not happen. And, again, Martinez was not afforded the follow-up examination until October 30, 2017—eight and a half months late. Id. ¶ 40.
Martinez also alleges delayed treatment for his wrist injury. In May 2015, he allegedly complained of pain in his wrist, which he asserted was due to the use of black box handcuffs. Id. ¶ 42. In response, he was given an x-ray, which he contends "revealed he suffered from a medical condition that warranted further work up and treatment." Id. Still, Dr. Chamberlain limited that treatment to an ACE wrap.1 Id. ¶ 43. Martinez alleges that he next asked for treatment of his wrists in February 2016, but that Dr. Chamberlain asserted that he had not evaluated Martinez's wrists and referred him to sick call. That is a little confusing given the allegation that Dr. Chamberlain previously treated with an ACE wrap. Id. ¶ 44.
Regardless, Martinez asserts that Dr. Chamberlain was concerned about a potential nerve issue with Martinez's wrists in May 2016. Dr. Chamberlain then decided to delay treatment, however, until the knee could be surgically repaired. Id. ¶ 45. Martinez contends that this delay subjected him to unnecessary pain and disability ). Martinez again complainedof wrist pain in October 2016 and again asked why his treatment had been delayed. He was then prescribed physical therapy for the wrist injury on March 27, 2017. Id. ¶ 47. But that physical therapy did not resolve the problem. Id. ¶¶ 49-50. About three months later, Martinez was referred to a neurologist, because of a suspected nerve injury (consistent with Dr. Chamberlain's opinion from thirteen months before). Id. ¶ 50.
Still, that referral did not take place for another ten months. Id. ¶ 51. At that time, the neurologist recommended a nerve conduction study. But that study was delayed another four months. Id. ¶ 52. It revealed that Martinez suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome in both wrists. Id. ¶ 53. Despite this diagnosis, Martinez contends that he was not provided "definitive treatment" for the carpal tunnel. Id. ¶ 54.
Although Martinez has since been released from custody, he brings this suit to recover for alleges violations of his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. Before the Court is a motion to dismiss his claims against Wexford Health Sources, Dr. Tim Chamberlain, Dr. Jill Wahl, Dr. Arthur Davida, and Cathy Smith. Dkt. 114.
To defeat a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must have alleged facts sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This means that a plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations must allow "the court to draw the reasonable inference that thedefendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 622, 678 (2009). The Court accepts as true all of the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations and views them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. Deerfield Constr., Inc., 933 F.3d 806, 809 (7th Cir. 2019).
The burden of persuasion on a motion to dismiss rests with the defendant. Reyes v. City of Chicago, 585 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1017 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (). And although a plaintiff must raise the plausible inference of liability, Rule 8 does not require him to plead facts that he cannot know without discovery. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chi. & Nw. Ind., 768 F.3d 510, 529 (7th Cir. 2015).
As an initial matter, Defendants argue that Martinez has engaged in impermissible group...
To continue reading
Request your trial