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.

Rosales v. Corizon, Inc.

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

September 29, 2016

OSCAR ROSALES, Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON, INC., NEIL JOHN MARTIN M.D., Defendants.

          ENTRY DISCUSSING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

          HON. WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE

         Plaintiff Oscar Rosales, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (“Wabash”), brought this action alleging that he has received inadequate medical care at that facility. He seeks injunctive relief that would require medical staff to provide him with: (1) a wheelchair; (2) an MRI of his back, neck, and knees; (3), pain medication; (4) a “complete physical exam” with a Spanish speaking provider; (5) a consultation with an orthopedic surgeon; and (6) examination by a urologist. For the following reasons, Rosales's motion for a preliminary injunction [dkt 22] is denied.

         I. Standard

         A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy that is available only when the movant shows clear need.[1] Goodman v. Ill. Dep't of Fin. and Prof'l Regulation, 430 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2005). A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show (1) that its case has “some likelihood of success on the merits, ” and (2) that it has “no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is denied.” Ezell v. City of Chi., 651 F.3d 684, 694 (7th Cir.2011). If the moving party meets these threshold requirements, the district court “weighs the factors against one another, assessing whether the balance of harms favors the moving party or whether the harm to the nonmoving party or the public is sufficiently weighty that the injunction should be denied.” Id. The district court's weighing of the facts is not mathematical in nature; rather, it is “more properly characterized as subjective and intuitive, one which permits district courts to weigh the competing considerations and mold appropriate relief.” Ty, Inc. v. Jones Group, Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 895-96 (7th Cir.2001) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 12 (7th Cir.1992))

         II. Facts

         Rosales's claims are based on medical care he has received for his urinary tract problems and knee, back, and neck pain.

         A. Urinary Tract Issues

         On November 14, 2014, defendant Dr. Martin saw Rosales for his complaints of pain and inability to urinate. Dr. Martin's exam was normal and Dr. Martin recommended that Rosales restart Pamelor and ordered Flomax. He also ordered a urinalysis.

         On December 5, 2014, Rosales complained that he could not urinate that morning and had groin pain. Dr. Martin discontinued Pamelor and ordered placement of a catheter and a urine sample. Rosales received relief from his pain and distention with this treatment. However, Rosales continued to complain of inability to urinate and Dr. Martin ordered re-placement of a catheter and admission to the infirmary for urinary retention. On December 8, 2014, Dr. Martin examined Rosales in the infirmary and noted that the catheter appeared to relive his pain over the weekend and his bladder was not extended. Dr. Martin diagnosed Rosales with acute urinary retention and recommended an urgent surgical consult with an urologist.

         On December 10, 2014, Rosales went to Terre Haute Regional hospital for a urological consult with Dr. P. Patel. A CT scan of Rosales's abdomen and pelvis showed only mild enlargement of the prostate (as well as degenerative lumbar spine changes.) Dr. Patel diagnosed Rosales with acute urinary retention and an enlarged prostate. Dr. Patel ordered surgery to relieve the urinary obstruction and rule out cancer. Rosales returned to Wabash that same day. Dr. Martin admitted him to the infirmary to monitor his condition and requested approval for the surgery.

         Dr. Patel performed the surgery on December 19, 2014. After examination of the removed prostate, Rosales was diagnosed with an enlarged prostate and no cancer. Rosales returned to Wabash the next day and Dr. Martin admitted him to the infirmary and requested a follow-up appointment with a urologist. Rosales was discharged from the infirmary on December 23, 2014. Rosales was able to urinate without a catheter, but complained of abdominal cramping. Dr. Martin examined Rosales on December 30, 2014, and Rosales complained of blood in his urine. Dr. Martin examined him again the next day and noted that there was still blood in his urine, but less than there was the previous day. On January 3, 2015, Dr. Martin ordered Cipro to address this issue.

         On January 7, 2015, Rosales returned to Terre Haute Regional Hospital for his two-week follow-up appointment. He complained of frequency, urination at night, painful urination, and blood in his urine. He also complained of lower abdominal and rectal pain. On exam his abdomen was soft, non-tender, and he had bladder distention. He was ordered to continue Cipro and Tylenol for pain for the next 5-7 days. Corizon medical staff were ordered to observe him for continued complaints of urgency, frequency, and night urination. The urologist explained that the blood in his urine should resolve within 8 weeks after the surgery, and if it did not then Rosales may be experiencing an overactive bladder. A follow-up appointment was ordered in three months to ensure symptom improvement. Corizon medical staff scheduled that appointment.

         On January 14, 2015, Dr. Martin examined Rosales and noted that he experienced urinary tract infection symptoms after surgery and was placed on Cipro, but continued to complain of some discomfort. Dr. Martin requested a consult with a urologist. On February 18, 2015, Dr. Martin examined Rosales while he waited for a urologic consult. Rosales continued to complain of painful urination, although his bleeding had largely subsided. Dr. Martin awaited the urologist's determinations for further care. On April 15, 2015, Rosales went to Terre Haute for a urological consult. He complained of pain, painful urination, and lack of fluid with ejaculation. A urinalysis and post-void residual bladder scan were ordered, which were negative. On April 22, 2015, Dr. Martin examined Rosales in a seven day follow-up after his urologist consultation. Dr. Martin discussed with Rosales that the urologist found no urological issue with him and recommended follow-up as needed. Rosales accepted this determination but still complained of painful urination, hesitancy, and sexual dysfunction. Dr. Martin ordered a urinalysis.

         On June 17, 2015, Dr. Martin examined Rosales for his continued complaints of painful ejaculation. Rosales said that twice since having surgery he has had spontaneous painful ejaculations at night and also when masturbating. Dr. Martin explained that this was not a level I or II care issue and encouraged him to stop masturbating, especially to excess.

         B. Knee, ...


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.