Prosser v. Nagaldinne
| Decision Date | 18 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:09CV2117 JAR. |
| Citation | 927 F.Supp.2d 708 |
| Parties | Christopher L. PROSSER, Plaintiff, v. Govindarajulu NAGALDINNE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jason D. Sapp, Gray and Ritter, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
James C. Thoele, Brinker & Doyen, L.L.P., Clayton, Jeffrey J. Brinker, Brinker and Doyen, Peter J. Dunne, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C., Jessica L. Liss, Mary D. Delworth, Attorney General of Missouri, Rex P. Fennessey, McMahon and Berger, St. Louis, John J. Treu, Jefferson City, MO, for Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Govindarajulu Nagaldinne, MD's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Dr. Joel Nitzkin (ECF No. 199), Defendant Govindarajulu Nagaldinne, MD's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 200), Defendants George Lombardi, Melody Griffin, and Gale Bailey's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 203), Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Report and Opinions of Dr. Richard Lehman (ECF No. 205), Defendants Corizon, Inc. f/k/a Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Dr. Michael Sands, Dr. Elizabeth Conley, Dr. Cleveland Rayford, Dr. Beverly Morrison, Dr. Laurain Hendricks, and Lois Cella's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 208), and Defendants' Daubert Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Dr. Joel Nitzkin (ECF No. 212). These motions are fully briefed and ready for disposition.
The medical history and records in this case are extensive. In 1987, Plaintiff fell from a three story building and landed on his back. (ECF No. 204, p. 7). On May 24, 1988, Plaintiff had an MRI which revealed that he had a central disc herniation at L4–L5 and S1. ( Id.). When Plaintiff entered the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) in 1992, he complained of back pain and two herniated discs. ( Id.).
On January 11, 1997, Plaintiff was stabbed multiple times, including in his right ankle. (ECF No. 204, p. 7). Thereafter, Plaintiff complained of pain radiating from a stab wound. (ECF No. 204, p. 8).
On June 16, 1997, Plaintiff experienced an episode where he was unable to dorsiflex his right foot actively, which is indicative of drop foot. ( Id.). Foot drop is a condition where the nerves that give strength to the muscles that allow a person to lift his foot become weak and the person cannot lift or dorsiflex his foot or ankle. (Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Facts (“PSAF”), ECF No. 220–1, ¶ 10); see also http:// www. webmd. com/ a- to- zguides/ foot- drop- causes- symptoms- treatments, visited on December 13, 2012. Foot drop can result in difficulty walking because the foot “slaps” the ground due to an inability to lift the foot. (PSAF, ¶ 11). Foot drop can vary in degree from weakness to complete foot drop. (PSAF, ¶ 12).
On May 23, 2002, Plaintiff was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”). (ECF No. 204, p. 8). Plaintiff was referred to Dr. Helen Rice, a RA specialist in late 2004 and early 2005. ( Id.). Dr. Rice stated that Plaintiff's discomfort in his right side may be related to his history of RA. ( Id.).
In early August 2006, Plaintiff was jogging on a path at the Farmington Correctional Center (“FCC”), and he stepped into a hole. (PSAF, ¶ 3). Plaintiff claims that he had no difficulty walking prior to his injury in August 2006. (PSAF, ¶ 4). Plaintiff experienced severe pain and lost the use of his right foot. (PSAF, ¶ 5). Another inmate, Christopher Arnold, told Plaintiff that he had “foot drop” and neurological issues. (PSAF, ¶ 6). On August 2, 2006, Plaintiff filled out a Medical Services Request (“MSR”), which stated that he was suffering from foot drop on the right side and other neurological problems. (PSAF, ¶ 8).
Plaintiff was evaluated by a nurse, Christine Wenneker, on August 2, 2006, after he was told he could not see a physician. (PSAF, ¶¶ 15–16; ECF No. 201, ¶¶ 7–8). There is a dispute regarding what occurred at that visit. Plaintiff contends that he reported pain and told the nurse he could not move his foot and he was unable to move his foot up, down, or side to side. (PSAF, ¶¶ 16–17). Plaintiff was referred to a doctor. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 13).
On August 7, 2006, Plaintiff saw a nurse, Lori Wilson, who indicated that Plaintiff had a prior history of herniated discs and was unable to flex/extend his right foot. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 15). Plaintiff was scheduledto see a physician. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 16).
On August 11, 2006, Plaintiff saw Dr. Nagaldinne. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 17). There is also a dispute regarding what occurred at that visit. Plaintiff claims that he required help to walk to the medical unit. (PSAF, ¶¶ 19–20). Plaintiff described pain running down his leg and loss of the use of his foot. (PSAF, ¶¶ 21–22). Plaintiff asserts that he also told Dr. Nagaldinne that he had foot drop and a spinal injury, and that it was a surgical emergency. (PSAF, ¶ 22). Plaintiff claims that Dr. Nagaldinne failed to document his entire complaint and seemed angry when Plaintiff used medical terminology with him. (PSAF, ¶¶ 23, 26). Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Nagaldinne told him that the surgery he requested was too expensive and would not be approved, and that Plaintiff would just have to try walking on it. (PSAF, ¶ 27). Plaintiff claims that Dr. Nagaldinne looked at Plaintiff's foot but did not touch Plaintiff or perform any physical exam. (PSAF, ¶ 29). Plaintiff states that his visit with Dr. Nagaldinne lasted five minutes or less. (PSAF, ¶ 29). Dr. Nagaldinne admitted that foot drop is a serious condition and that delay in treating foot drop can result in permanent injury. (PSAF, ¶ 13). Likewise, Dr. Nagaldinne stated that foot drop is consistent with a worsening of a herniated disc and that the onset of foot drop in a patient with a herniated disc is a significant medical development. (PSAF, ¶ 14).
In contrast, Dr. Nagaldinne reports that on August 11, 2006, he observed Plaintiff walk into the examination and watched his gait to see if there were any neurological deficits, but he did not note any. (ECF No. 201, ¶¶ 46–58). Dr. Nagaldinne claims that he performed an examination of Plaintiff's spine, which was normal, and Plaintiff's range of motion and straight-leg-raising (“SLR”) test was normal. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 20). Plaintiff's sensory and motor systems were also normal. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 20). Dr. Nagaldinne examined Plaintiff's right foot and Achilles tendon, which were both normal. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 21). Dr. Nagaldinne determined that Plaintiff did not have foot drop because he was able to walk and get onto the exam table without any problems, and Dr. Nagaldinne did not notice any foot drop. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 23).
On August 15, 2006, Plaintiff claims that he was assisted to the medical unit. (PSAF, ¶ 33). Plaintiff claims that Dr. Nagaldinne told Plaintiff that he had already seen Plaintiff and that he could not help him. (PSAF, ¶ 33; ECF No. 201, ¶ 24). Plaintiff asserts that he left the medical unit without receiving any examination or treatment, or being inquired of his condition. (PSAF, ¶ 33). Dr. Nagaldinne, however, contends that he saw Plaintiff walk in without any difficulties and without any foot drop or other indicators of pain or discomfort. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 59). Dr. Nagaldinne contends that the MSR for the August 15, 2006 appointment was dated prior to the August 11, 2006 visit with Dr. Nagaldinne. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 60). Because the MSR was filed before the last examination and for the same condition, and because there was no change, Dr. Nagaldinne did not do an another physical examination. (ECF No. 201, ¶¶ 61–62).
On August 23, 2006, Plaintiff saw Dr. Cleveland Rayford for some lab tests. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 25). The medical records from this visit do not indicate that Plaintiff complained about any foot problems at this visit. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 26).
On December 7, 2006, Plaintiff went to the medical unit. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 27). The medical records do not indicate that Plaintiff complained of any foot pain (ECF No. 201, ¶ 28).
On January 11, 2007, Plaintiff told nurse O'Neail that he had problems with RA in the right ankle and wanted to see a doctor. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 29).
On January 17, 2007, Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Rice, who diagnosed Plaintiff with foot drop. (PSAF, ¶ 39).
On January 29, 2007, February 1, 2007, and February 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed MSRs regarding intense pain. (PSAF, ¶ 40).
On February 2, 2007, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Hendricks for complaints about RA related to his right ankle. (ECF No. 204–3, # 2663). Plaintiff claims he was assisted to a visit with Dr. Hendricks. (PSAF, ¶ 41). Plaintiff contends Dr. Hendricks refused to physically examine Plaintiff, provide pain medication or review Plaintiff's medical history. (PSAF, ¶ 42). Plaintiff alleges that defendant Dr. Hendricks indicated that surgery to correct Plaintiff's medical issues was too expensive and would not be approved by defendant CMS.1 (PSAF, ¶ 43). Instead, Dr. Hendricks gave Plaintiff a cane. (PSAF, ¶ 44).
On February 27, 2007, Plaintiff was noted to be ambulating with a “slap gate [sic] of the right foot.” (ECF No. 201, ¶ 33).
On March 5, 2007, Plaintiff returned to defendant CMS and was evaluated by its physician, Dr. Rayford. (ECF No. 209, ¶ 131). Dr. Rayford noted that Plaintiff suffered from right foot drop. ( Id.). Dr. Rayford requested that Plaintiff receive an MRI and evaluation by an orthopedic specialist. ( Id., ¶ 132). On March 15, 2007, Plaintiff again saw Dr. Rayford. (ECF No. 201, ¶ 36; ECF No. 209, ¶ 133). Dr. Rayford ordered a referral for an MRI to assess the anatomy of Plaintiff's foot. (ECF No. 209, ¶ 134). Plaintiff notes that Dr. Rayford submitted this referral request for an MRI on March 15, 2007. (ECF No. 224–1, ¶ 134). Dr. Michael Sands approved the request for the MRI. (ECF No. 209, ¶ 134). On March 22, 2007, Plaintiff saw Dr. Rayford, who noted that Plaintiff still had foot drop and was walking with a cane. (ECF No. 209, ¶ 135).
On ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaney v. Cradduck
...care where there is no individual determination of the prisoner's medical need for the narcotic prescription); cf. Prosser v. Nagaldinne, 927 F. Supp. 2d 708 (E.D. Mo. 2013) (no deliberate indifference when physician determined inmate no longer had a need for pain medication). Similarly, wi......
-
Raybourn v. Corizon Health, Inc.
...medical need when they denied the inmate special orthopedic shoes requested by one of the plaintiff's treating doctors. 927 F. Supp. 2d 708, 737, 740 (E.D.Mo. 2013). See also McMican v. Lewis, 53 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 1995) (unpublished opinion) (inmate who suffered from painful lipomas failed......
-
Lorenzen v. Pinnacol Assurance
...by Lorenzen — O’Neill v. Van Herpe , 956 F.2d 263 (4th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision), and Prosser v. Nagaldinne , 927 F.Supp.2d 708 (E.D. Mo. 2013) — do not address the reliability of the "sooner is better than later" theory. And, contrary to Lorenzen’s argument, the ......
-
Tracy Land Davis v. West
...care where there is no individual determination of the prisoner's medical need for the narcotic prescription); cf. Prosser v. Nagaldinne, 927 F. Supp. 2d 708 (E.D. Mo. 2013)(no deliberate indifference when physician determined inmate no longer had a need for pain medication). I also believe......