United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division
SECOND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
This cause is before the Court on the motion of Defendants Layla Al-Shami and Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc. for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 40], filed on May 15, 2013 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56. Having previously granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s federal claims, we now DENY summary judgment on the remaining state-law claims for the reasons set forth below.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff David Vest was arrested on child pornography and child exploitation charges and incarcerated at the Jefferson County Jail in Madison, Indiana on April 30, 2009. Def.’s Br. 2. He remained incarcerated there until his custody was transferred to the Indiana Department of Corrections on April 16, 2010. Id. Defendant Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc. (“ACH”) is a medical services organization that, during the time of Plaintiff’s incarceration, was under contract with Jefferson County to provide medical services at the Jefferson County Jail. Compl. ¶ 8. Defendant Layla Al-Shami is a registered nurse practitioner, employed by ACH, who served in the Jail as a “site practitioner” during the time of Plaintiff’s incarceration Compl. ¶ 7; Defs.’ Br. ¶¶7–9.
At the time of his arrest in April 2009, Plaintiff told officers as part of his intake procedure that he was experiencing some “tingling” in his fingers and toes. Vest Dep. 33–34. He did not initially ask for medical attention, nor was he taking any medication for these symptoms at the time. Id. Several days after his arrival at the Jail, Plaintiff was beaten by other prisoners, suffering injuries to his head, shoulders, and face. Id. at 35–36. In the aftermath of this assault, Plaintiff reported that he was experiencing greater numbness and tingling in his hands and feet. Compl. ¶ 11. Upon putting in a “sick call”-a request for medical attention at the Jail-Plaintiff saw a member of the jail medical staff and was given Tylenol. Id. at 12–13. In September 2009, Plaintiff put in three sick calls to complain of what he thought were sciatica symptoms. Jail medical staff members saw him on three occasions, prescribing Ibuprofen; according to Plaintiff, the medication did not relieve his symptoms. See Compl. ¶ 14–15; Pl.’s Ex. 1. Plaintiff asked for and received medical attention five times during the course of 2009. Pl’s Ex. 1.
In December 2009, Plaintiff began to experience involuntary contraction of the third and fourth fingers of his left hand, difficulty walking on his left leg because it was “dragging, ” leg tremors, and pain in his limbs. After putting in a sick call two days earlier, he saw a jail nurse on January 26, 2010; Al-Shami then examined him on January 27. Defs.’ Br. 4, ¶¶ 14–16. Noting that his gait and musculoskeletal strength (assessed using a grip test) seemed normal, Al-Shami deemed the symptoms consistent with arthritis and prescribed Ibuprofen to alleviate pain. Pl.’s Ex. 2. Plaintiff put in another sick call on February 14, after which he was examined by the jail nurse on February 16 and by Al-Shami on the following day. While being examined by Al-Shami, Plaintiff complained of back pain and difficulty with ambulation as well as tremors; he also noted to her that he had a history of “benign muscle spasms” in his family. Pl.’s Ex. 5. Al-Shami recorded that he presented with a shuffling gait, tremors in his limbs and difficulty straightening the third and fourth fingers in his left hand, but she also recorded that his “activities of daily living” remained intact. Id. She prescribed Ibuprofen for pain and Amantadine for the tremors, and wrote that he should be monitored for difficulties with daily living activities and any worsening of symptoms. Id. The jail nurse saw Plaintiff again the next day, and noted that he manifested “[no complaints of] pain or discomfort. Slow to move, no tremors noted when being talked with by nurse. Able to move and use [bilateral upper extremities] and [bilateral lower extremities.]” Pl.’s Ex. 6; Defs.’ Br. 4, ¶ 21.
On February 23, 2010, Plaintiff awoke on the floor of his cell and had difficulty in standing up; he felt numbness and weakness in his legs and on the right side of his body. Compl. ¶¶ 23–25. Jail staff contacted King’s Daughters’ Hospital in Jefferson County, which dispatched EMTs to the Jail in response to Plaintiff’s distress. Defs.’ Br. 4, ¶ 22. Plaintiff believed at the time that he had suffered a stroke, and the responding EMTs measured his blood pressure at the high level of 140/120. Compl. ¶¶ 27, 31. While being treated by the EMTs, Plaintiff signed a form stating that he “refused” to be transported to the hospital. See Pl.’s Ex. 7. While he does not deny signing this form, Plaintiff maintains that he was in such distress at the time that he did not read or understand what he was signing; Plaintiff insists now that he wanted to go to the hospital but the EMTs told him that would not be possible. Vest. Dep. 59–60. After this incident, Plaintiff was placed on “medical watch” to allow jail staff to monitor his symptoms more closely. Defs.’ Br. 5, ¶ 24.
According to Plaintiff, his symptoms steadily worsened; he reported increasing numbness and tremors coupled with extreme difficulty in walking-to the point that he had to use a wall to steady himself or seek assistance from other inmates. Pl.’s Ex. 9. He saw Al-Shami again on March 3, 2010, and she noted that Plaintiff’s presentation of symptoms conflicted with the reports of jail staff, who related that Plaintiff was “functioning and walking fine” when not being watched by medical personnel. Id. She nevertheless observed several objective symptoms, including tremors and a strength of grip that was weaker in his left hand than his right. Id. Al-Shami prescribed Neurontin to combat the neurological symptoms and the tremors, and she wrote that Plaintiff should undergo a “neurology consult ASAP if condition doesn’t improve [with] Neurontin”; she also ordered that Plaintiff remain on medical watch for another week with monitoring of symptoms. Id. According to her testimony, it was also at this time that Al-Shami ordered MRI and CT scans for Plaintiff, though the scans were not ultimately performed until later. See Al-Shami Dep. 95. Five days later, Al-Shami examined Plaintiff again. According to her patient notes, Plaintiff told her that the Neurontin was helping ease his symptoms; she therefore increased his dosage and additionally prescribed Colace to alleviate the constipation he reported. Pl.’s Ex. 11. In his deposition, Plaintiff maintains that neither Neurontin nor the other medications prescribed by Al-Shami mitigated his symptoms, and he denies having reported to al-Shami that the Neurontin was effective during the March 8 examination. Vest Dep. 71. Plaintiff visited the Jail nurse again on March 16 and March 23; the nurse continued Plaintiff’s medical watch status pending the neurology consult. Pl.’s Exs. 12, 13.
Al-Shami examined Plaintiff twice more in April 2010. On April 6, she reviewed the notes of the Jail nurse who had seen Plaintiff the previous day, and she recorded: “Staff states inmate sleeping all the time . . . . Increased Neurontin not helping signs and symptoms. Vital signs have been stable. General condition same.” Al-Shami Dep. 88–89. Plaintiff also reported to Al-Shami that he had “jolts of electricity down his spine, ” and he expressed a desire to schedule his neurology consultation before his upcoming trial date. Id; Pl.’s Ex. 16. Al-Shami testifies that, despite her experience in treating patients with neurological issues, she was unfamiliar with the “electrical jolts” Plaintiff described to her. Al-Shami Dep. 89. Al-Shami also testifies that, after her April examinations of Plaintiff, she discussed Plaintiff’s case with other ACH staff and expressed concern to jail officials about the delay in the neurological consultation that she had requested for Plaintiff. Id. at 96–97, 119. According to Al-Shami, the responsibility for scheduling and coordinating off-site visits rested with Jail staffers. Id. at 119. Al-Shami testifies that as of April 2010, she viewed Plaintiff’s status as “urgent, but not emergent”-meaning that his symptoms were not improving adequately with the treatment available at the Jail, but that his life signs were stable and there did not seem to be any “acute” danger. Al-Shami Dep. 122.
On April 16, 2010, Plaintiff was transferred out of the Jefferson County Jail to the Indiana Department of Corrections in Plainfield, Indiana, and neither Al-Shami nor any other ACH employees had further contact with him. Compl. ¶ 53; Def.’s Br. 7. In an examination at Wishard Hospital, Dr. Richard B. Rodgers diagnosed Plaintiff with spinal stenosis. Dr. Rodgers performed cervical spine fusion surgery on April 23, 2010 to address Plaintiff’s condition. Compl. ¶ 60. Plaintiff pleaded guilty to the charges against him, and served the remainder of his sentence in Plainfield, after which he was released to King’s Daughters’ Hospital in Jefferson County. As of February 2013, he was residing at a nursing facility in Bedford, Indiana, and treatment for his spinal stenosis was ongoing. According to Plaintiff, despite rehabilitation efforts, he remains a “quadriplegic C3 incomplete, ” with only limited use of all four of his extremities. Vest Dep. 111. Dr. Rodgers, whose group has been responsible for Plaintiff’s treatment and rehabilitation since his initial surgery in 2010, opines that earlier diagnosis or surgical intervention would likely have improved Plaintiff’s long-term prognosis: “If there had been some intervention at a time when he had started to notice weakness, then definitely his neurological outcome would have been different . . . . [O]nce it becomes symptomatic and you start to notice progression in symptoms, it continues to be progressive until there’s an intervention.” Rodgers Dep. 15–16.
Plaintiff filed this suit on April 3, 2012. Docket No. 1. Defendants filed their joint Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims on May 15, 2013. Docket No. 41. We subsequently granted summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff’s federal claims, concluding that the record did not support Plaintiff’s allegation that either of the Defendants had engaged in conduct meeting the elevated “deliberate indifference” standard necessary to prove an Eighth Amendment violation. See Docket No. 65.
At the same time as this partial grant of summary judgment, we noted that a jurisdictional obstacle prevented our resolution of Plaintiff’s state-law malpractice claim on its merits. Because Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedy provided by the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act would deprive us of subject-matter jurisdiction over the state-law claim and state records indicated that Plaintiff’s administrative complaint had not yet been closed, we directed Plaintiff to show cause why these remaining claims should not be dismissed ...