Rice v. Wexford Health Servs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14 C 4978 |
| Parties | CRAIG D. RICE, Plaintiff, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Craig D. Rice ("Plaintiff") filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Wexford Health Services, Inc., ("Wexford"), Eric Mizuno, ("Mizuno"), Thomas Hassen, ("Hassen"), Patricia Quick, ("Quick"), Theodore Uchiek, ("Uchiek"), and Mark Curran ("Curran"). Presently before us are two motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); Defendant Wexford's motion to dismiss, (Dkt. No. 58), and Defendants Quick, Uchiek, and Curran's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 55). For the reasons stated below, Defendant Wexford's motion is granted and Defendants Quick, Uchiek and Curran's motion is denied.
Plaintiff's claims stem from allegedly inadequate medical treatment he received while in custody at the Lake County Sheriff's Office Adult Correctional Facility ("Lake County Jail") in Waukegan, Illinois. (Compl. ¶1.) In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he "suffers from blood clots in his lungs, a serious condition that requires ongoing monitoring and treatment." (Id.) He further alleges that a large blood clot "can cause cardiac arrest, stroke, and death" while a "smaller clot can cause damage to the lung tissue." (Id. ¶ 11.)
On May 5, 2014, Plaintiff was transferred from Vista Medical Center East ("Vista") in Waukegan, Illinois to the medical unit at the Lake County Jail.1 (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff was transferred to Vista the day before for shortness of breath and a pulmonary embolism (a blockage of an artery in the lung). (Id. ¶¶ 11, 14) At Vista, Plaintiff was prescribed a blood-thinner, warfarin, (the generic version of the brand-name drug Coumadin), and twice-daily injections of Lovenox. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 15.) Plaintiff alleges that representatives of Vista contacted medical personnel at the Jail to confirm that his medical treatment would continue upon his transfer. (Id.)
After arriving at the jail around May 5, Dr. Mizuno, a jail physician employed by Wexford, ordered that Plaintiff receive twice-daily Lovenox injections for a week. (Id. ¶ 16.) Later that week, blood tests revealed that Plaintiff's international normalized ratio ("INR"), a test to evaluate a patient's blood clotting qualities, was below the desired range, possibly indicating a need for adjusted prescription levels. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 17.) On May 11, 2014, six days after Dr. Mizuno ordered a weekly, twice-daily dose of Lovenox, Plaintiff's second dose was not administered. (Id. ¶ 17.) Soon thereafter, Plaintiff experienced chest pain and severe shortness of breath and reported his symptoms to the medical staff. (Id. ¶ 18.) In response to his complaints, the staff informed Plaintiff: "this is not the hospital, this is jail." (Id.)
On May 12, 2014, Plaintiff's Lovenox injections were discontinued all together and he was transferred from the medical unit to general population. (Id. ¶ 18.) While in general population, Plaintiff continued to experience shortness of breath, stiffness and pain in his legs and general weakness. (Id.) Around May 16, Plaintiff's INR remained well below the desiredrange. (Id. ¶ 19.) Two days later, on May 18, Dr. Mizuno ordered that Plaintiff's Lovenox injections be resumed for another week (May 18-May 24). (Id. ¶ 24.) Even with the Lovenox injections, Plaintiff's chest pain continued. (Id. ¶ 20.) Because of his ongoing chest pain, Plaintiff requested an emergency appointment with Dr. Mizuno but Dr. Mizuno refused to see him. (Id.)
On May 21, 2014, Plaintiff was informed by medical staff that his Lovenox was missing from the medical cart. (Id. ¶ 22.) Medical records indicate that he did not receive either of his Lovenox injections that day. (Id.) On May 22, Plaintiff's INR was again below the desired range. (Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff did not receive either of his Lovenox injections on the 22nd. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that from May 21 through May 31, Plaintiff's prescribed, twice-daily injections were frequently not administered and were soon discontinued. (Id. ¶ 21.)
On May 24, 2014, Dr. Mizuno prescribed an additional two weeks of twice-daily Lovenox injections. (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff did not receive his second injection on May 27, 28, 29 or 30. (Id.)
On June 2, after yet another atypical INR result, Dr. Mizuno prescribed additional Lovenox injections to be administered twice-daily through June 15. (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff did not receive a single injection from June 4 through June 10. On June 4, Plaintiff requested a second emergency appointment with Dr. Mizuno due to increasing pain and pressure in the back of his head. (Id. ¶ 26.) Dr. Mizuno refused to see Plaintiff, again. (Id.) Dr. Mizuno did see Plaintiff on June 9, 2014. (Id. ¶ 27.) During that appointment, Dr. Mizuno informed Plaintiff that each Lovenox injection was $100 and, "that's a lot of money." (Id.) The next day, on June 10, Dr. Mizuno ordered that Plaintiff receive another week of injections. (Id. ¶ 28.) The next day, Plaintiff's INR was normal so the injections were discontinued. (Id.)
On June 22, Plaintiff experienced painful bruising in his leg, a possible sign of deep vein thrombosis, the formation of a blood clot. (Id. ¶ 29.) In response to the bruising, Plaintiff requested an appointment with Dr. Mizuno. (Id. ¶ 29.) Dr. Mizuno refused to see Plaintiff, for the third time. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed at least five grievances alerting prison staff of his health condition and his inadequate care. (Id. ¶ 30.) In response to these grievances, Plaintiff was told that his grievances were being "forwarded to medical" for a response. (Id.) In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it was Defendant Patricia Quick, a Lake County Jail correctional officer, who (for at least four of the five grievances), informed Plaintiff that the complaint was being forwarded to medical. (Id. ¶ 30.) Despite filing at least five grievances, Plaintiff received just one response from medical. (Id.) In that response, Defendant Hassan, Wexford's Acting Health Services Administrator, concluded on July 2, 2014 that Plaintiff's grievance was unfounded because Plaintiff was "seen by a [d]octor on 6/9/14." (Id. ¶ 31)
Plaintiff alleges that at least one grievance, a grievance filed on May 31, 2014, was forwarded to Lake County Jail "command," and thus, was seen by Defendant Sheriff. (Id.) In early June 2014, Defendant Uchiek, Deputy Director of Corrections of Lake County Jail, visited Plaintiff in his cell concerning the May 31 grievance, allegedly on behalf of Defendant Sheriff Curran. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 31.) Defendant Uchiek asked Plaintiff for his copy of the grievance, and when Plaintiff declined, Defendant Uchiek responded: "you must not want the Sheriff's help." (Id. ¶ 31.)
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is meant to "test the sufficiency of the complaint, not to decide the merits" of the case. Gibson v. City of Chi.,910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). In evaluating a motion to dismiss, we must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Cole v. Milwaukee Area Tech. Coll. Dist., 634 F.3d 901, 903 (7th Cir. 2011); Thompson v. Ill. Dep't. of Prof'l. Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir. 2002). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must include a short and plain statement of the claim, showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Accordingly, a court may grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) only if a complaint lacks "enough facts to state a claim [for] relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 697, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1960 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007)); Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010).
"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S. Ct. at 1955). Although a facially plausible claim need not give "detailed factual allegations," it must allege facts sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . ." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S. Ct. at 1955). These requirements ensure that "the defendant [receives] fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests . . . ." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S. Ct. at 1964 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99, 103 (2007)).
Plaintiff brings three claims: (1) deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition, against individual Defendants Mizuno, Hassan, Quick, Uchiek and Curran ("individual Defendants"); (2) respondeat superior, directed against corporate Defendant Wexford; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") brought against the individual Defendants. For the purposes of this motion, we consider Counts I and III only as to Defendants Quick, Uchiek and Curran. We discuss each claim in turn, below.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Quick, Ucheik and Curran, non-medical Defendants, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need. (Compl. ¶ 38.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew of a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff's health yet consciously disregarded that known risk by failing to take affirmative...
To continue reading
Request your trial