Murphy v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 27 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:12CV22 HEA,2:12CV22 HEA |
| Parties | MICHAEL MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. GARY CAMPBELL, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Gary Campbell, Tomas Cabrera and Corizon Inc.s' Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 18]. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
Plaintiff brought this action for an alleged violation of his Constitutional rights during his confinement at the Northeast Fast Correctional Center. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying medical treatment. Plaintiff claims these actions constitute deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
Rule 7-4.01 (E) of this Court's Local Rules provides:
Rule 7-4.01(E) A memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment shall have attached a statement of uncontroverted material facts, set forth in a separately numbered paragraph for each fact, indicating whether each fact is established by the record, and, if so, the appropriate citations. Every memorandum in opposition shall include a statement of material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue exists. Those matters in dispute shall be set forth with specific references to portions of the record, where available, upon which the opposing party relies. The opposing party also shall note for all disputed facts the paragraph number from movant's listing of facts. All matters set forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the opposing party.
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants' Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts. Those facts, set out below, are therefore deemed admitted.
Plaintiff Michael Murphy ("Plaintiff") is an offender in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections. During part of the time period relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff was confined at the Northeast Correctional Center in Bowling Green, Missouri .
Defendant Corizon, Inc. has a contractual agreement with the State of Missouri to provide medical services to the Missouri Department of Corrections. Defendant Dr. Tomas Cabrera is a physician licensed in the State of Missouri who is retained as an independent contractor physician by Corizon to provide medical care to offenders incarcerated at Northeast Correctional Center. Defendant Gary Campbell is a physician licensed in the State of Missouri who is retained as anindependent contractor physician by Corizon .
Dr. Campbell did not personally provide any medical care or treatment to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's allegations against Dr. Campbell relate to Dr. Campbell's alleged role in denying Plaintiff orthopedic shoes.
Plaintiff reportedly has a history of medical issues relating to his ankles, which includes a car accident where both ankles were fractured and required bilateral ankle surgery in 1973. Plaintiff alleges that he sought medical care during his incarceration at Northeast Correctional Center, starting on or around January 1, 2010, for these pre-existing ankle injuries. Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that he needed orthopedic shoes for his ankles and that Defendants Campbell and Cabrera failed to provide said orthopedic shoes. Plaintiff claims that, as a result of the alleged denial of "these needed treatments and aids [orthopedic shoes], and potential nerve graph surgery" he suffered "serious, permanent, and debilitating physical and neurological injuries including, but not limited to, massive neurological damage to both ankles and feet, disfiguration, severe chronic pain and associated degeneration of the bone and atrophy of the muscles, tendons, [and] ligaments . . . ."
Plaintiff has received medical care from multiple physicians while incarcerated, including from Dr. Covillo on November 24, 2010 and December17, 2010. Dr. Covillo prescribed naproxen and acetaminophen to Plaintiff for a period of three months each to treat arthritis pain.
Dr. Gilmore examined Plaintiff on February 23, 2011, and prescribed naproxen to Plaintiff for a six-month period.
Plaintiff first complained of ankle pain while at Northeast Correctional Center on April 10, 2011; he was given Tylenol and referred to Dr. Cabrera for examination. Dr. Cabrera first examined Plaintiff for his complaints of ankle pain on April 12, 2011. During the April 12 evaluation, Plaintiff told Dr. Cabrera that he had fractured his right ankle in another prison six years ago. Based upon Plaintiff's complaint of right ankle pain on April 12, Dr. Cabrera ordered xrays of the plaintiff's right ankle. The x-rays taken of the plaintiff's right ankle were interpreted as having "findings of old medial malleolar fracture with no findings of acute osseous injury" and that "acute fracture or dislocation is not apparent."
Medial malleolar fractures may be treated conservatively, through rest, ice, pain medication and anti-inflammatory drugs, immobilization, and physical therapy. When determining the appropriate course of treatment for Plaintiff's ankles, Dr. Cabrera evaluated the x-ray report showing no acute fracture, dislocation, or osseous injury, and no evidence of any recent fractures or recent injury to the ankles. In Plaintiff's case, based upon Dr. Cabrera's examination ofthe plaintiff and review of the x-rays taken of the plaintiff's ankles, no discernible evidence of a recent injury to the plaintiff's ankles was discovered.
Following his examination of the plaintiff and review of the x-rays, Dr. Cabrera fitted the plaintiff with bilateral ankle sleeves and provided him with pain medication. Dr. Cabrera determined that ankle sleeves were appropriate medical care for Plaintiff's ankles as these devices may be used to stabilize and protect the ankle area from further injury. Plaintiff signed a medical product receipt acknowledging his receipt of the ankle sleeves on May 20, 2011. After personally evaluating Plaintiff and reviewing Plaintiff's medical records, including records from the Arkansas Department of Corrections, Dr. Cabrera determined that orthopedic shoes were not medically indicated for the plaintiff.
On May 31, 2011, the plaintiff completed a medical services request complaining of ankle pain.
On June 14, 2011, Nurse Linda Wiley examined Plaintiff for his complaint of ankle pain. Nurse Wiley observed that the plaintiff was not compliant with Dr. Cabrera's prescribed medical treatment, in that the plaintiff was not wearing the ankle sleeves that had been issued to him on May 20.
On August 3, 2011, Dr. Cabrera prescribed gel pad insoles and ankle sleeves for the plaintiff for his ankles. Plaintiff was provided with these gelinsoles and two ankle sleeves on August 15, 2011, and signed a receipt for medical product acknowledging same. Plaintiff requested additional gel pad insoles in October 2011 and was provided same.
Plaintiff's next report of any medical issues relating to his ankles was on November 7, 2011. A nurse examined Plaintiff on November 7 for his complaint regarding his ankles; she noted a small amount of swelling and provided him with ibuprofen.
Dr. Cabrera evaluated the plaintiff on November 11, 2011, and found that plaintiff had a corn on his foot requiring removal. Dr. Cabrera also prescribed naproxen and another insole for Plaintiff's complaints of ankle pain on November 11. The naproxen prescription was good for a three-month period, through February 9, 2012.
Plaintiff again reported ankle pain on November 18, 2011, advising medical staff that his "ankles were broken 20-30 years ago and he is still having pain." Plaintiff was examined and referred to Dr. Cabrera. Dr. Cabrera examined the plaintiff on November 21, 2011, and determined that the options were limited for Plaintiff's longstanding complaints of ankle pain relating to an injury occurring many years ago, other than the pain medications, gel insoles, and ankle sleeves already prescribed. Specifically, there was no evidence of any recent injury toPlaintiff's ankles requiring treatment or correction. Plaintiff's longstanding ankle injuries could not be eliminated but could be treated through aides to make Plaintiff more comfortable. It was Dr. Cabrera's opinion that the shoes that Plaintiff had been issued, along with the gel insoles and ankle sleeves, were medically appropriate to treat Plaintiff's ankle complaints.
Corizon medical staff again provided Plaintiff with gel insoles in December 2011. Plaintiff was also provided with insoles on March 20, 2012.
Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Cabrera on April 11, 2012, and was treated for multiple callouses on his feet. Dr. Cabrera also renewed Plaintiff's medical lay-ins on April 11, 2012. Plaintiff was also provided with pain medication through the time period relevant to the Complaint.
The standard for summary judgment is well settled. In determining whether summary judgment should issue, the Court must view the facts and inferences from the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir. 2005). The moving party has the burden to establish both the absence of a genuine issue of material fact andthat it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Enter. Bank, 92 F.3d at 747. Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party may not rest on the allegations in his pleadings but by affidavit or other evidence must set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Anderson 477 U.S. at 256; Krenik v. Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial