Paige v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-cv-1315-MJR |
| Parties | CORY PAIGE, Plaintiff, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., JOHN DOE #1, KIMBERLY BUTLER, TROST, CHRISTOPHER MATHIS, KELLY PIERCE, SHERRY BENTON, GAIL WALLS, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LOUIS SHICKER, and JOHN DOE #2 Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
Plaintiff Cory Paige, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross "the line between possibility and plausibility." Id. at 557. At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff originally filed suit on July 28, 2016 in Case No. 16-cv-858-SMY-RJD. On December 6, 2016, the Court determined that Plaintiff had brought claims unrelated to one another and severed several counts into the present matter. (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff alleges that the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), John Doe #1 (Director), and medical director Shicker have known that Menard is understaffed and not meeting its responsibility to provide medical care and access since 2010, when the lawsuit Lippert v. Wexford was filed. (Doc. 2, p. 24). Plaintiff further alleges that Butler turned a blind eye to the deficient medical conditions as the former Warden of Menard. Id. Plaintiff also filedgrievances, which were reviewed by the IDOC, Shicker, Doe #1, and Butler regarding Plaintiff's inadequate medical care. (Doc. 2, p. 25). The deficient conditions that Plaintiff complained of are due in part to a policy of Wexford Health Sources, Inc. that allows inmates to be treated inadequately for cost cutting purposes. (Doc. 2, pp. 25-26).
Out of the blue, from 2012 until 2015 Plaintiff began experiencing migraine-like headaches and vision loss. (Doc. 2, pp. 26, 28). He was given Tylenol and referred to a doctor. Id. The doctor prescribed Plaintiff pain medication, but disregarded the fact that Plaintiff did not have a history of migraines, dizziness, diplopia, or blurry vision. Id. Plaintiff had a follow-up visit 30 day later and made it known that the pain medication he had been prescribed was not working. (Doc. 2, pp. 26-27). Plaintiff also told staff that he was still experiencing dizziness and blurred vision. (Doc. 2, p. 27). Plaintiff alleges that an MRI or CT scan should have been considered at that time. Id.
Plaintiff continued to put in sick call slips. Id. Eventually, he was referred to John Doe #2 (eye doctor). (Doc. 2, p. 27-28). Despite seeing Doe #2, Plaintiff's vision problems worsened. (Doc. 2, p. 28). He also continued to experience severe headaches and blacked out on a few occasions. Id. Doe #2, Wexford, and Trost persisted in their course of treatment and would not discontinue treatment that was not working or order further testing. Id. Plaintiff was given nothing more than Excedrin for Migraines for his headaches. (Doc. 2, p. 29).
After 3 years of complaining about headaches and vision loss, Trost and Wexford finally approved an MRI. (Doc. 2, p. 28). The MRI showed that Plaintiff had a tumor in his brain, specifically on his pituitary gland. (Doc. 2, pp. 29-30).
Plaintiff alleges that the IDOC, John Doe #2 (Director), Shicker, and Butler all knew that Plaintiff was not receiving adequate medical care and turned a blind eye to Plaintiff's complaintsabout inadequate medical treatment. Id. Trost told Plaintiff during the course of his treatment for his tumor that "we normally don't spend this much money on an inmate." (Doc. 2, p. 30).
On April 12, 2016, Plaintiff went to see a specialist at an outside hospital who recommended radiation treatment, which may result in a loss of function on Plaintiff's pituitary gland. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Plaintiff believes the need for radiation may have been eliminated had the tumor been discovered earlier. Id.
Plaintiff was continually frustrated when he tried to resolve these issues through the grievance process. (Doc. 2, p. 33).
The prior Order severing claims into this case divided up Plaintiff's claims into specific Counts. (Doc. 1). Specifically, that Order found 6 claims should be severed into this case:
Upon further review of the Complaint, the Court also finds it appropriate to add a count not described in the original Order severing the claims:
Count 15 - Wexford Health Sources has an unconstitutional policy that requires medical staff to cut costs in lieu of providing adequate treatment to prisoners in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Turning to Count 9, in order to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, an inmate must show that he 1) suffered from an objectively serious medical condition; and 2) that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to a risk of serious harm from that condition. An objectively serious condition includes an ailment that has been "diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment," one that significantly affects an individual's daily activities, or which involves chronic and substantial pain. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997). Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994). The Eight Amendment does not give prisoners entitlement to "demand specific care" or "the best care possible," but only requires "reasonable measures to meet a substantial risk of serious harm." Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1997). Deliberate indifference may be shown where medical providers persist in a course of treatment known to be ineffective. Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 655 (7th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff's first claim is that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they understaffed the health care unit. However, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that the understaffing caused the harm he complains of, namely that his braintumor went undiagnosed for 3 years. Plaintiff has not alleged that he missed appointments due to understaffing or that his appointments were delayed. His Complaint specifically states that he saw a doctor within 30 days of reporting the migraines. In fact, Plaintiff alleges that he was not given an MRI for 3 years due to cost-cutting policies, not understaffing policies. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff's allegations that his injury was caused by understaffing to be conclusory and not adequately supported by his factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial