Payne v. Sevier Cnty.
| Decision Date | 10 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No.: 3:14-CV-346-PLR-CCS,: 3:14-CV-346-PLR-CCS |
| Parties | WILMER PAYNE, Plaintiff, v. SEVIER COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Plaintiff filed a timely complaint for violation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July, 24, 2014. First Med, Inc. ("First Med") filed a motion to dismiss this original complaint resulting in the submission of an amended complaint on September, 16 2014. During the pendency of the action, the Plaintiff entered a settlement agreement with First Med, Nurse Mason, Nurse Hippler, Nurse Timbrook, Mr. Thomason, and Dr. Roberts. The remaining defendants—Sevier County, Tennessee, Jail Administrator Larry McMahan, and Sevier County Sheriff Ronald Seals—filed a motion for summary judgment on August 20, 2015. Plaintiff responded in opposition on September 24, 2015, but later entered a stipulation of dismissal with respect to McMahan and Seals on December 16, 2015. Before the Court are Sevier Count's motion for summary judgment and motions by the parties asking the Court to exclude testimony by opposing party's expert witnesses.
Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Sevier County Jail on March 29, 2013 pursuant to a guilty plea on a misdemeanor domestic assault and scheduled to be released on December 27, 2013. At some point in June 2013, plaintiff began experiencing "severe pain and soreness in his mouth, teeth, and lower facial areas" and, after "repeated verbal requests," filed a written request for a dental examination on June 7, 2013. Nurse Mason placed his name on the "dental list" that same day.
After a month and a half passed without word from the dentist, Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance citing First Med's failure to provide the requested medical care. Custodial officers forwarded the grievance to First Med, leading to a follow-up examination by Nurse Williams on July 23, 2013. This was Plaintiff's first in-person examination since filing the written medical request 48 days earlier. The report reveals complaints of a "sore/broken" tooth, and a "slightly red with yellow raised area" on the lower right jaw. Nurse Williams declined to order bloodwork, x-rays or images, but did prescribe seven days of penicillin and ibuprofen.
Plaintiff continued to complain and eventually received a second in-person examination on July 30, 2013, this time by Nurse Peterson, LPN.1 She declined to order x-rays, images, or bloodwork, citing the absence of any visible "bleeding, swelling, or redness." Plaintiff filed his second inmate grievance the following day, claiming the pain had become "so intense [his] nose [was] bleeding," his eyesight was blurred, and it had become difficult to swallow. The grievance requested ibuprofen "to release pain and pressure until [the] dentist could get [there]." Custodial officers forwarded the complaint to the medical staff and Nurse Timbrook denied the requestbased on Nurse Peterson's July 30, 2013 report and the fact that Plaintiff was already on the "dental list."
Plaintiff received his third in-person medical examination, the second from Nurse Williams, on August 18, 2013. Despite the fact that the examination revealed an extremely tender "raised pocket" on Plaintiff's upper palette, no imaging or x-rays were ordered. Plaintiff was given additional ibuprofen.
Plaintiff received his first dental exam on August 21, 2013, more than two months after initially having his name placed on the dental list. Jail records indicate that Dr. Roberts preformed the examination with the assistance of Nurses Mason and Hippler.2 No diagnostic tests were performed and no images or x-rays were taken, Plaintiff received a new order for ibuprofen and a follow-up appointment on the dental list. Convinced that the on-going symptoms meant something serious must be wrong, the Plaintiff filed a second Inmate Sick Call form two days later, complaining of tooth pain, migraines, and nose bleeds and requesting a follow-up dental examination.
Sheri Cable, LPN ("Nurse Cable") administered Plaintiff's fifth examination on September 12, 2013, and based on the Plaintiff's noticeably red and swollen mouth, referred the Plaintiff to the presiding physician's assistant, Mr. Thomason. Mr. Thomason's follow-up examination on September 18 revealed a "long lesion" and "tender pink swollen area [on Plaintiff's] upper palate" surrounded by dying flesh and an "abscess." Aside from changingPlaintiff's antibiotics, it is unclear what, if any, additional treatment Plaintiff received from Mr. Thompson.
The Plaintiff saw Dr. Roberts on September 25, 2013. The record from that visit reflects simply that the inmate would be getting out in a few weeks and that he wanted to see a dentist at that time. Three days after the follow-up dental examination, Plaintiff filed his third Inmate Sick Call claiming "infection worse than ever, all teeth loose, nasal closed up, [and suffering] migraine headaches." On October 2, 2013, Dan Hartley, LPN ("Nurse Hartley") observed "severe dental issues [were] preventing [Plaintiff] from chewing" and causing significant weight loss. Presented with the foregoing facts, Mr. Thomason agreed to "have imaging performed on [Plaintiff's] mouth" and scheduled a CT scan for October 7, 2013. Plaintiff filed his fourth Inmate Sick Call on October 5, 2013, noting the nasal infection had "spread[] through [his] face" and requesting an immediate trip to the emergency room in hopes of avoiding permanent damage.
The October 7, 2013 CT scan revealed a 45-by-45 millimeter mass "eroding into surrounding bone and . . . [the] anterior mandible, with extension into the roots of multiple teeth." Mr. Thomason received news of the results on October 10, 2013, but failed to take any action. Plaintiff filed his fifth Inmate Sick Call two days later, explaining that he needed "to see a doctor" because he couldn't swallow or chew food." He again received no response. Plaintiff's first and only trip to the emergency room came on October 16, 2013, when the in house medical staff was unable to stop one of his nose bleeds. This visit was six days after Mr. Thomason had been provided with the results of Plaintiff's CT scan. The emergency room physician noticed a large deformity on Plaintiff's left pallet, ordered a follow-up appointment with an "ENT specialist," and prescribed narcotic pain medicine. Sevier County releasedPlaintiff from custody after it learned the severity of his condition—an oral cancer known as squamous cell carcinoma.
Plaintiff filed the current action on July 24, 2014 asserting deliberate indifference and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Before the Court now is Sevier County's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be GRANTED and corresponding claims will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All remaining non-dispositive motions will be DENIED as moot.
Summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is proper wherever the movant shows the absence of any genuine material dispute and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issues of material fact exist. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 n.2 (1986); Moore v. Phillip Morris Cos., 8 F.3d 335, 339 (6th Cir. 1993). All facts and inferences therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v. Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002). "Once the moving party presents evidence sufficient to support a motion under Rule 56, the non-moving party is not entitled to a trial merely on the basis of allegations," Curtis v. Universal Match Corp., Inc., 778 F. Supp. 1421, 1423 (E.D. Tenn. 1991) (citing Catrett, 477 U.S. at 317), but instead must point to evidence in the record upon which a reasonable juror could find in his or her favor, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
The Court's function at the point of summary judgment is limited to determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to make the issue of fact a proper question for the factfinder. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. The Court does not weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matter. Id. at 249. Nor does the Court search the record "to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact." Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479-80 (6th Cir. 1989). Thus, "the inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is a need for a trial—whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.
Section 1983 plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Black v. Barberton Citizens Hosp., 134 F.3d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1998); O'Brien v. City of Grand Rapids, 23 F.3d 990, 995 (6th Cir. 1994); Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1042 (6th Cir. 1992); see also Braley v. City of Pontiac, 906 F.2d 220, 223 (6th Cir. 1990) (). In the Eighth Amendment medical context, this requires evidence that "acts or omissions [were] sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Thus, under the Estelle standard, "[a] constitutional claim for denial of medical care has [both] objective and subjective components." Blackmore v. Kalamazoo...
To continue reading
Request your trial