Peterson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 January 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-2592,19-2592
• Citation: 986 F.3d 746
• Parties: Sidney L. PETERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Arthur Davida, Sara Mays, and Loreatha Coleman, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

986 F.3d 746

Sidney L. PETERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Arthur Davida, Sara Mays, and Loreatha Coleman, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-2592

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued November 3, 2020

Decided January 26, 2021

Kenneth N. Flaxman, Attorney, Joel A. Flaxman, Attorney, Law Office of Kenneth N. Flaxman P.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Julie Ann Teuscher, Attorney, Brett R. Furmanski, Esq., Attorney, Lynsey Anne Stewart, Attorney, Cassiday Schade LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Arthur Davida.

Evan Siegel, Attorney, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees Sarah Mays, Loreatha Coleman.

Before Kanne, Scudder, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.

Kanne, Circuit Judge.

Illinois inmate Sidney Peterson was injured after he personally applied a caustic medication to treat his genital warts. He now seeks to hold the prescribing doctor, the attending nurses, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., accountable under state and federal law.

Peterson's federal claims end here because he failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference against any of the defendants. However, all parties agree that Peterson's state-law negligence claims were timely brought. We agree, and those claims may continue.

We affirm the district court's dismissal of Peterson's deliberate indifference claims, and we reverse its dismissal of Peterson's state-law negligence claims and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

In January 2015, Sidney Peterson suffered from genital warts while incarcerated at the Stateville Correctional Center in Joliet, Illinois.¹ Dr. Arthur Davida—a physician at Stateville and employed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc.—prescribed Peterson a topical medication known as Podocon-25 to remove his warts.

Podocon-25 contains a caustic substance called podophyllin. It should be applied sparingly and then removed thoroughly with soap and water. Its packaging, in accordance with FDA regulations, states that "PODOCON-25© IS TO BE APPLIED ONLY BY A PHYSICIAN. IT IS NOT TO BE DISPENSED TO THE PATIENT. " It also warns of potential "ADVERSE REACTIONS: The use of topical podophyllin has been known to result in paresthesia, polyneuritis, paralytic ileus, pyrexia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, coma and death."

But Dr. Davida did not apply the Podocon-25 to Peterson's genital warts. Neither did Sarah Mays, a licensed practical nurse at Stateville, nor Loreatha Coleman, a registered nurse there. Instead, Mays and Coleman instructed Peterson to apply the treatment himself. He did so and suffered personal injuries as a result. (It is unclear whether Peterson used the medication in the presence of nursing staff or alone in his cell; his first complaint indicated the latter, but the operative complaint is silent.)

The procedural background of this case is more involved than its facts. In January 2016, Peterson filed a federal complaint pro se against Dr. Davida, Mays, Coleman, and multiple prison officials—several correctional officers, the prison warden and assistant warden, and the deputy director of the Illinois Department of Corrections—under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this first complaint, he alleged that the medical staff had caused him personal injuries, namely "severe soars [sic] on his penis" and resulting "permanent injuries and erectile dysfunction," when he was required to apply the Podocon-25 himself in his cell and despite the fact that it "is not to be used by a person with diabetes." He also alleged that the other defendants had destroyed his shower pass permits that Dr. Davida had granted to him as part of his treatment or that they had otherwise failed to intervene to correct the situation.

In March 2016, the district court conducted a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In its March 16 order, the court granted Peterson's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis , denied his motion for attorney representation, and dismissed his claims against all defendants except three correctional officers. Peterson was advised that he could seek to file an amended complaint.

After obtaining counsel, Peterson filed an amended complaint in July 2016, reasserting his claims under § 1983 and adding Wexford as a defendant. This amended complaint divided his claims into two parts: first, the Podocon-25 claims against Dr. Davida, Mays, Coleman, and Wexford; and second, the shower-pass claims against the prison officials. Peterson alleged more detail about Podocon-25's properties and packaging and less detail about how and where the medication was administered than in his initial pro se complaint. After discovery, the parties stipulated to dismissal, and the case was accordingly dismissed without prejudice on January 25, 2018.

On January 21, 2019—nearly one year later—Peterson filed the operative complaint, again with the assistance of counsel, claiming deliberate indifference under § 1983 and negligence under Illinois law against Dr. Davida, Mays, Coleman, and Wexford regarding his treatment with Podocon-25.

Mays and Coleman filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Peterson failed to allege sufficient facts for deliberate indifference and that his negligence claims should be barred by sovereign immunity and the statute of limitations. In response, Peterson supplemented his allegations with further detail about Podocon-25 and its intended application.

On May 23, 2019, the district court granted the motion after finding that, although the complaint pled the existence of a serious medical condition, it failed to sufficiently allege that the defendants had the requisite state of mind for deliberate indifference. The district court also held that Peterson's negligence claims were barred by the statute of limitations because his first complaint in January 2016 did not contain those allegations. Further, the relation-back doctrine did not apply because it governs only amendments to a complaint, not an entirely new filing. Peterson filed a motion to reconsider, which the district court denied.

Following Mays and Coleman's successful motion to dismiss, Dr. Davida and Wexford moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice in a docket entry, without discussion, on July 30, 2019. Judgment was entered the next day in favor of the defendants. Peterson timely appealed.

II. ANALYSIS

We review de novo the district court's decision granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "accepting as true all well-pleaded facts and drawing reasonable inferences in [Peterson's] favor." United Cent. Bank v. Davenport Est. LLC , 815 F.3d 315, 318 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. , 694 F.3d 873, 879 (7th Cir. 2012) ). For a pleading to survive, the plaintiff need allege "only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). But "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).

We review the district court's order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings the same way—"de novo, asking whether the well-pleaded factual allegations viewed in favor of the nonmoving party state a facially plausible claim for relief." Sinn v. Lemmon , 911 F.3d 412, 418 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing Gill v. City of Milwaukee , 850 F.3d 335, 339 (7th Cir. 2017) ).

A. Deliberate Indifference

"To determine if the Eighth Amendment has been violated in the prison medical context, we perform a two-step analysis, first examining whether a plaintiff suffered from an objectively serious medical condition, and then determining whether the individual defendant was deliberately indifferent to that condition." Petties v. Carter , 836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (citing Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) ).

Here, Defendants do not dispute that Peterson suffered from an objectively serious medical condition. We turn then to the second step and consider whether Peterson alleged facts plausibly stating a claim that Mays, Coleman, Dr. Davida, and Wexford were deliberately indifferent to his condition.

To satisfy this subjective step, the complaint must allege that the defendants acted with a "sufficiently culpable state of mind." Farmer , 511 U.S. at 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter , 501 U.S. 294, 297, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) ). "[D]eliberate indifference entails something more than mere negligence" but "something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result." Id. at 835, 114 S.Ct. 1970 ; see also Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) ("Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner."). "[T]he official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Farmer , 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970.

"Prison officials must provide inmates with medical care that is adequate in light of the severity of the condition and professional norms." Perez v. Fenoglio , 792 F.3d 768, 777 (7th Cir. 2015). Demonstrating that the inmate received some treatment "does not automatically defeat a claim of deliberate indifference." Id. (quoting Edwards v. Snyder , 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2007) ). "Deliberate indifference may occur where a prison official, having knowledge of a significant risk to inmate health or safety, administers ‘blatantly inappropriate’ medical treatment ... ." Id. (quotin...