Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perkins v. Byrd

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

August 15, 2016

COREY PERKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. BYRD, DR. MANDIP BARTLES, Defendants.

          ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND MOTION TO COMPEL

          Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge

         I. Motion for Declaratory Relief

         Based on the determination by prison physician Dr. Byrd that no further treatment was needed to address the plaintiff’s continuing knee pain, in the Entry of March 30, 2016, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary medical injunction and stated as follows:

Dr. Byrd, or his designee with the authority to do so, shall refer Mr. Perkins to an outside orthopedic specialist to examine and evaluate Mr. Perkins’ right knee. The Court denies Mr. Perkins’ request for specific pain medications and MRI, and leaves whatever treatment, if any, is appropriate, to the determination of the specialist.

Dkt. 39, p. 4.

         In response to the Court’s order, the plaintiff was referred to and seen by an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Madsen, on May 2, 2016.

         On June 27, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for declaratory relief and damages. In that motion, he requests that the Court find the defendants in contempt for stating that they will not necessarily comply with all of Dr. Madsen’s recommendations. He also sought an award of $119.00 for each day he was not provided the Tramadol that Dr. Madsen prescribed. The Court agrees with the defendants in finding that the plaintiff’s motion for declaratory relief is in substance a motion to compel compliance with the Court’s prior order, and that a declaratory judgment is not appropriate under these circumstances. For this reason, the plaintiff’s motion for declaratory relief [dkt. 65] is denied.

         II. Motion to Compel

         On July 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel which also requests an order directing the defendants to comply with the Court’s order of March 30, 2016. Specifically, he argues that the defendants must provide the medication prescribed by Dr. Madsen and send the plaintiff back to Dr. Madsen for a follow-up appointment.

         The plaintiff contends that the defendants have failed to provide the “follow-up” recommended by Dr. Madsen. Dkt. 84, p. 4. He interprets Dr. Madsen’s “follow-up” notation as meaning that he was supposed to have a second appointment with Dr. Madsen. Although the Court agrees that it would have been reasonable to send the plaintiff back to Dr. Madsen after the MRI, Dr. Madsen’s report specifies that the follow-up he recommended was an MRI and Tramadol. Id. In fact, the plaintiff had an MRI and Tramadol was prescribed.

         Instead of sending the plaintiff back to Dr. Madsen after the MRI was completed, however, the defendants sent the plaintiff to a second orthopedist on July 15, 2016. This physician recommended a diligent course of physical therapy and Meloxicam, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (“NSAID”). Dkt. 86-1, p. 6. The plaintiff was also offered a corticosteroid injection but he declined. Id.

         Although the plaintiff was not seen again by Dr. Madsen, the defendants report that after the MRI was taken Dr. Madsen recommended surgery due to the plaintiff’s thinning ACL. The defendants further report that Dr. Madsen did not specify the cause of the plaintiff’s condition or state why he recommended surgery. Any post-MRI report from Dr. Madsen is not part of this record, nor have the defendants sought any further clarification from him.

         What appear to be the major disputed points presented by the motion to compel are the type and duration of medications prescribed and whether or not surgery should be provided. Before proceeding further with that discussion, to clear up any misunderstanding on the part of the plaintiff, the Constitution does not mandate that he be restored “back to his pre-incident health.” Dkt. 81, p. 6. He is entitled to “reasonable measures to meet a substantial risk of serious harm.” Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 754 (7th Cir. 2011). What is “reasonable” with respect to the defendants’ conduct prior to the filing of this lawsuit must be decided based on professional judgments and standards and is the ultimate issue in this action, one that will not be decided on this ancillary motion.

         With respect to medication, the parties disagree as to whether the Tramadol prescribed by Dr. Madsen was given to the plaintiff for two weeks or three, but the record has no medication dispensation report. Therefore, the Court cannot determine precisely how many pills were prescribed and if the prescription was given in its entirety. If Dr. Madsen’s prescription was specific in duration, the plaintiff is entitled to that medication under the Court’s March 30, 2016, Entry. The Court’s Entry, however, shall not be construed to place all future medical decisions ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.