Pyle v. Sims, Civil No. 5:15-CV-05245

• Decision Date: 30 January 2017
• Docket Number: Civil No. 5:15-CV-05245
• Citation: Pyle v. Sims, Civil No. 5:15-CV-05245 (W.D. Ark. Jan 30, 2017)
• Parties: DAVID MARTIN PYLE PLAINTIFF v. HEAD NURSE ROBIN SIMS, NURSE JUDY MADEWELL, ANDREW PIAZZA (nurse), and NURSE PHEBE GROTHAUS DEFENDANTS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas

DAVID MARTIN PYLEPLAINTIFF v. HEAD NURSE ROBIN SIMS,NURSE JUDY MADEWELL, ANDREW PIAZZA (nurse),and NURSE PHEBE GROTHAUSDEFENDANTS

Civil No. 5:15-CV-05245

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

January 30, 2017

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.

At all times relevant to the complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center(WCDC).Plaintiff is currently not incarcerated.

Plaintiff contends his constitutional rights were violated when an error concerning his prescribed dosage of the anti-psychotic drug Quetiapine was made by unknown medical personnel on his Medical Administration Record (MAR).Specifically, the dosage was changed from the maximum safe dose of 800 mg per day to 1600 mg per day.(Doc. 1, pp. 5-8).Plaintiff also contends actions taken by Southern Health Partners(SHP) medical staff in response to that error also violated his constitutional rights.(Doc. 1, pp. 6-8).Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff's official capacity claims.(Doc. 9).This motion was granted on March 14, 2016.(Doc. 13).Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the remaining individual capacity claims.(Doc. 19).Plaintiff has filed a written response.¹(Doc. 22).The Court requested and received two summary judgment supplements from Defendants.(Docs. 27, 30)Plaintiff responded to the first supplement.(Doc. 28).Plaintiff did not respond to the second supplement.Defendants filed an additional affidavit from a non-party on January 25, 2016.(Doc. 32).The motion is ready for decision.

1.Background

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on or about August 1, 2015, SHP medical staff gave him the wrong dosage of Seroquel (Quetiapine).Specifically, he alleges the prescribed dose was 400 mg twice daily, and he was given 800 mg twice daily.(Doc. 1, p. 5).He alleges this occurred for approximately thirty days.He further alleges that when the mistake was discovered, SHP medical staff abruptly cut his dosage back to the correct dosage without giving his body and mind time to adjust.(Doc. 1, p. 5).Plaintiff alleges this made him immune to the prescribed amount.(Doc. 1, p. 6).

Plaintiff alleges he saw Nurse Madewell about his conditions after the medication dosage was reduced back to a total of 800 mg per day.He alleges that she ignored his requests to speak to a physician, and instead told him to "work on his coping skills."(Doc. 1, p. 7).He alleges Nurse Robin Sims² is the head nurse and was aware of the staff mistake.He further alleges sheis "responsible for the actions of the staff working under her," but permitted them to ignore his requests to fix this issue.³He alleges she is involved in staff attempts to cover up the mistake concerning his medication.(Doc. 1, p. 8).

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, mental compensation, and "to make sure this misconduct doesn't happen in the future."(Doc. 1, p. 12).

Defendants filed their summary judgment motion on August 8, 2016.(Doc. 19).

In his response to the summary judgment motion, Plaintiff stated he"never claimed any physical issues" due to the Quetiapine overdose.(Doc. 22, p. 1).Rather, he states the high dosage and abrupt cessation down to the correct dosage left him with mental issues as a schizophrenia patient.(Doc. 22, p. 1).In the first page of the response, he states he received the overdose for thirty days.(Doc. 22, p. 1).Later in the response he states that Defendants' Exhibit 1-d (September MAR) indicates he received the overdose for twenty seven days, as opposed to the five days claimed by Defendants.(Doc. 22, p. 2, 4).He repeated that this caused mental issues, not physical issues.(Doc. 22, p. 2).Plaintiff stated Defendants' Exhibit 1-g (Plaintiff's medical progress notes) shows that he complained of hearing voices after his dosage was reduced, and was told to work on his coping skills.(Doc. 22, p. 2).Plaintiff also questions the inability of Defendants to determine who made the clerical error which resulted in the overdose.(Doc. 22, p. 3).

2.Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587(1986), the record "show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)."Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with the non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists."National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607(8th Cir.1999).

The non-moving party"must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts."Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586."They must show there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor."National Bank, 165 F.3d at 607(citingAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249(1986))."When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment."Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380(2007)."A case founded on speculation or suspicion is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment."Id.(citing,Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 625(8th Cir.1985)).

3.Discussion

Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the following grounds: (1)Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs; (2)Defendant Sims is notliable to Plaintiff based on the a theory of respondeat superior; and (3)Plaintiff cannot meet proof with proof to show a genuine issue of material fact.(Doc. 20, pp. 5-9).

A.No Actual Physical Injury

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes Plaintiff stated he suffered no physical effects as a result of the overdose and any subsequent actions or inactions by Defendants after the overdose was discovered.(Doc. 22, pp. 1-2).Rather, he states he only suffered mental issues.(Doc. 22, pp. 1-2).

Section 803(d) of the PLRA provides as follows: "No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury . . . ."42 U.S.C. A. § 1997e(e)(West, WestlawNext throughPub. L. No. 114- 254, approvedMarch 7, 2013.)Furthermore, "[c]laims under the Eighth Amendment require a compensable injury to be greater than de minimis."Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 448(8th Cir.2008).

The PLRA therefore limits the available damages in the absence of a physical injury but does not preclude a Plaintiff from pursuing a claim.SeeRoyal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720, 723(8th Cir.2004)(The physical injury requirement of the PLRA "limit[ed] recovery for mental or emotional injury in all federal actions brought by prisoners" but does not bar the recovery of nominal and punitive damages);seealsoPool v. Sebastian County, 418 F.3d 934, 942 n.2(8th Cir.2005)(Section 1997e(e) presents an issue of damages under the PLRA).

The Court could find no case law indicating that the worsening of mental or emotional symptoms, alone, qualifies as a compensable physical injury.A survey of all circuits indicated symptoms such as anxiety, sleeplessness, and hallucinations, even if considered to have somephysical manifestation or component, do not pass the de minimis injury hurdle.Seee.g.Edler v. Hockley County Comm'rs Court, 589 Fed. App'x 664 (5th Cir. 2014)(delerium tremors from alcohol withdrawal, with no medication and with inmate waking up bloody not frivolous; however, claims for denial of mental health and mental retardation care not actionable without physical injury); Amick v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., 521 Fed. App'x 354 (6th Cir. 2013)(discontinuation of antipsychotic drugs, which ultimately resulted in increased symptoms and death in a fight, did not meet objective component of deliberate indifference because inmate did not report symptoms for five months after discontinuation);Chatham v. Adcox, 334 Fed. App'x 281 (11th Cir. 2009)(when inmate was repeatedly "crashed" from his Xanax, the resulting anxiety, nightmares, and hallucinations did not rise to a level of a physical injury that was greater than de minimis; he was also being given other psychotropic drugs);Baker v. Pettis Cnty. Jail, No. 06-4092-CV-C-NKL, 2007 WL 4289693(W.D. Mo.Nov. 28, 2007)(denial/delay of anti-psychotic drugs to inmate was mere disagreement over diagnosis, and his unsupported allegation that he suffered extreme mental anguish is insufficient to support a claim).

Because Plaintiff has not alleged any actual physical injury in this case, de minimis or otherwise, he is not eligible to pursue compensatory damages.Plaintiff did, however, request punitive damages.Assuming a plaintiff can show the existence of a constitutional violation, punitive and nominal damages are available under the PLRA even in the absence of a physical injury.Royal, 375 F.3d at 723-24.Nominal damages are available to vindicate a violation of rights with no actual injury.Id. at 724.Punitive damages are available only when a "'defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference'" to protected federal rights.'"Id.(quotingSmith v. Wade, 461U.S. 30, 56(1983)).Thus, the Court must determine if Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the constitutional violation of deliberate...