Thomas v. Pfister
| Decision Date | 24 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 18-cv-4311 |
| Parties | Donzell THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. Randy PFISTER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
David A. Rammelt, Zaiba Baig, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Amanda Leigh Kozar, Maebetty Kirby, Samuel Todd Stevens, Office of the Illinois Attorney General General Law Bureau, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Randy Pfister.
Robert Steven Tengesdal, Margaret Mary Molloy, Connolly Krause, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendants Timothy J. Fahy, Wexford Health Sources Inc.
Plaintiff Donzell Thomas brings the instant action claiming that he received constitutionally inadequate medical care because he was denied sufficiently tinted eyewear for his injured, light-sensitive eye while an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center ("Stateville"). Defendant Timothy Fahy, O.D., has moved for summary judgment [115]. For the reasons that follow, Dr. Fahy's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Due to a gunshot injury sustained in 1984, Mr. Thomas suffers from optic nerve damage. ECF No. 119-1 at 19:13-18. A symptom of that damage is that one of Mr. Thomas's pupils is larger than the other, which causes Mr. Thomas to be hypersensitive to light. ECF No. 119-2 at 111:15-21, 113:4-7. Light sensitivity, if left untreated, can result in headaches and discomfort for the patient. Id. at 148:7-10. There is no pharmaceutical or surgical fix for light sensitivity--rather, the treatment is to wear tinted or Transitions
(photochromic) lenses "to cut down the amount of ultraviolet light and some of the normal light entering" the eye. Id. at 112:13-23.
To treat his injury, Mr. Thomas wore wire-frame Transitions lenses until he became incarcerated with the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). ECF No. 119-1 at 21:9-22:5. In 2011, Mr. Thomas's glasses were replaced with consistently tinted Eagle-frame glasses, which he received while at Stateville. Id. at 22:2-11, 150:20-23. Unfortunately, however, those glasses were broken during an institutional "shakedown" in or around 2013--both arms snapped and the lenses became scratched to the point of limiting visibility. Id. at 14:21-24; 129:8-9; 152:4-7. Mr. Thomas contends that he complained about his broken glasses, including to prison optometrists, starting 2013, but was unsuccessful in obtaining a replacement pair. ECF No. 7 ¶¶ 18-19. In the meantime, although tape is technically considered prison contraband at Stateville, Mr. Thomas was able to tape the arms onto his glasses and continue wearing them, except during an approximately six-month period in 2018, when the tape was confiscated and he was unable to obtain replacement tape. ECF No. 119-1 at 130:10-11; 132:11-133:6; 152:8-15.
Dr. Fahy, an optometrist, first began working for Wexford Health Sources, Inc. ("Wexford"), the private company that provides inmate medical care at Stateville and other prisons, in October 2016. ECF No. 125 ¶ 2. On December 5, 2016, Mr. Thomas visited Dr. Fahy, and Dr. Fahy prescribed Mr. Thomas a pair of large Nate-frame (hard-frame) glasses with "Transitions grey" lenses which he noted was for "UV protection / photophobia." ECF No. 119-2 at 115. Mr. Thomas did not immediately receive those glasses, however. At Stateville, prescriptions for both Transitions lenses and "Nate" hard-frame glasses must be sent for collegial review to the medical director of Wexford. Id. at 38:18-39:4, 66:11-67:23.
On or about December 22, 2016, the optometry nurse, Kara Matakiewicz, showed Dr. Fahy an email from Bill Shevlin with Stateville Intelligence. ECF No. 125 ¶ 6. Mr. Shevlin had been asked whether Mr. Thomas and a list of other inmates who had been prescribed hard Nate frames and/or Transitions lenses would be able to order those glasses in light of prison security considerations. Id. He replied, ECF No. 119-2 at 117 (emphasis in original).
On January 11, 2017, after seeing this email and without setting up another appointment with Mr. Thomas or otherwise informing him, Dr. Fahy changed Mr. Thomas's prescription to a standard rubber "Eagle"-frame pair of glasses with clear plastic lenses, citing "safety issues" with the previous prescription. ECF No. 119-2 at 116, 118. Those glasses were delivered to Mr. Thomas, but he returned them on May 31, 2017 because (1) they were not tinted or Transitions lenses, and (2) they were too small to fit his face. ECF No. 125 ¶ 20. When Mr. Thomas returned the glasses, Dr. Fahy's notes indicate that he offered to order Mr. Thomas a larger rubber frame with clear lenses, but Mr. Thomas declined. ECF No. 119-2 at 120. Mr. Thomas denies that he declined the larger glasses. ECF No. 119-1 at 55:5-9. Dr. Fahy's notes also indicate that he offered Mr. Thomas Solar Rolz, which are made of a thin, tinted, rollable plastic and can be worn underneath a pair of glasses. ECF No. 119-2 at 120; ECF No. 119-2 at 80:3-23. Solar Rolz are commonly handed out at the eye doctor after a patient's pupils have been dilated. Id. at 80:3-11. Mr. Thomas declined the Solar Rolz because he still had possession of his taped and scratched prescription tinted glasses from 2011, which he judged to be more helpful than the Solar Rolz would be. ECF No. 119-1 at 56:6-14.
On September 18, 2017, Dr. Fahy examined Mr. Thomas again, and noted that he presented with photophobia, or light sensitivity. ECF No. 119-2 at 121. He filled out a medical services referral and report requesting Transitions grey lenses for Mr. Thomas's photophobia. Id. at 133. On October 25, 2017, the Wexford medical director approved Transitions lenses for Mr. Thomas after a collegial review. Id. at 134. Dr. Fahy prescribed Mr. Thomas large-frame "Eagle Master" rubber glasses with "Transitions grey" lenses on November 6, 2017. Id. at 122. The order went through and the new glasses were sent to Stateville on November 13. ECF No. 125 ¶ 29.
On June 21, 2018, Mr. Thomas initiated the instant lawsuit. ECF No. 1. On July 23, 2018, Mr. Thomas saw Dr. Fahy again. ECF No. 119-2 at 124. Dr. Fahy's notes provide that Mr. Thomas reported photophobia even with the new glasses because the lenses were not darkening. Id. He wrote, "Patient reports photophobia in all lighting," and Id. (emphasis in original). Dr. Fahy thought it was possible the lenses were defectively manufactured, but because Mr. Thomas did not bring the glasses to the appointment, Dr. Fahy was unable to inspect them himself. Id. at 126:18-127:13. A few months later, however, on October 31, 2018, a correctional officer was able to bring Mr. Thomas's spectacles to the clinic. Id. Dr. Fahy brought the glasses outside so they could be illuminated by direct sunlight, and he observed the glasses darken to what he guessed was approximately 60% light blockage. Id. at 125.
On January 7, 2019, Mr. Thomas again came to see Dr. Fahy, complaining again about photophobia with his current glasses. Id. at 126. Dr. Fahy's notes provide: "indoor lighting does not activate PGX [photo grey extra transitional lenses] enough to provide relief for patient." Id. at 134:19-135:3; 126. Dr. Fahy prescribed eye drops, but did not address Mr. Thomas's chief complaint regarding his glasses. Id. at 137:2-16.
On June 19, 2019, this court denied in part Wexford's and Dr. Fahy's motions to dismiss. ECF No. 54. Soon thereafter, in July 2019, Dr. Fahy recalls that the Stateville facility medical director, Dr. Henze, came to tell him personally that they had just gotten ECF No. 119-2 at 62:12-16, 141:12-19. Dr. Fahy filled out an optical prescription order on July 31, 2019 for tinted hard Nate-frame spectacles for Mr. Thomas. Id. at 128. Mr. Thomas received those glasses in 2019 and has been satisfied with them. ECF No. 119-1 at 59:6-16.
"Summary judgment is proper if the moving party ‘shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ "
McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive, Inc. , 940 F.3d 360, 367 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ). "We ‘consider all of the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and we draw all reasonable inferences from that evidence in’ that party's favor." Id. (citing Bunn v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. for Valley Bank Ill. , 908 F.3d 290, 295 (7th Cir. 2018) ).
Mr. Thomas sued Dr. Fahy both in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as an employee of Wexford, "which is tantamount to a claim against Wexford." ECF No. 54 at 8. I turn first to the individual-capacity claim.
"Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs may constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment." Hildreth v. Butler , 960 F.3d 420, 425 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Campbell v. Kallas , 936 F.3d 536, 544-45 (7th Cir. 2019) ). "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). Negligence or recklessness is not enough; a prison official acts with deliberate indifference when "an official actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm." Id. at 728 (emphasis...
To continue reading
Request your trial