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.

Vermillion v. Corizon Health Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

July 13, 2017

JAY F. VERMILLION, Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON HEALTH INC., DR. PAUL A. TALBOT, RUBY BEENY LPN, Defendants.

          ENTRY DISCUSSING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

          JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE

         Plaintiff Jay Vermillion brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants failed to treat him for his kidney stones and the pain associated with them. Vermillion has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and the defendants were directed to respond to that motion. For the following reasons, the motion for a preliminary injunction, dkt. [23], is denied.

         I. Standard

         A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy that is available only when the movant shows clear need. 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

         Vermillion's claims in this case are based on medical care he has received for his urinary tract problems. Vermillion alleges that he has experienced severe pain in his abdomen, blood in his urine, and the passage of a kidney stone. He alleges that he has not received adequate treatment for these conditions. He seeks an order directing that he be seen by an outside urologist.[1]

         The Parties

         During all times relevant to his Complaint, Vermillion was a 57 year-old inmate incarcerated at the Pendleton Correctional Facility (“Pendleton”). He has a history of an enlarged prostrate that is controlled by Flomax and Aspirin for pain.

         Defendant Corizon is a medical service provider who, at all times relevant to the Complaint, provided medical services for the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”), including Pendleton.

         Defendant Dr. Talbot is a licensed general practitioner who, at all times relevant to the Complaint, was a physician providing medical services to inmates at Pendleton. Dr. Talbot saw inmates as they were placed on his schedule for a variety of medical conditions, including urinary tract infections and kidney stones.

         Defendant Nurse Beeny is a licensed practical nurse who, at all times relevant to the Complaint, was a nurse providing medical services to inmates at Pendleton. As a licensed practical nurse, Nurse Beeny did not prescribe medication for patients. Licensed practical nurses also did not diagnose or make treatment plans or decisions; these decisions must be made by the doctor or nurse practitioner. A licensed practical nurse triages or assesses a patient and follows the doctor's orders and treatment plan.

         Treatment for Vermillion's Enlarged Prostate and Urinary Tract Issues

         At the times relevant to the complaint, Vermillion was enrolled in the Chronic Care Clinic for his history of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia and enlarged prostate. Common symptoms of an enlarged prostate include inability to urinate, urinary tract infection, blood in the urine, and pelvic pressure. These symptoms are similar to the symptoms caused by urinary tract infections (“UTI”) or kidney stones. As an inmate enrolled in the Chronic Care Clinic, Vermillion is seen by a provider every 90 days and undergoes routine testing for his chronic conditions, including his enlarged prostate. Medical staff monitored Vermillion's enlarged prostate through monthly appointments and symptomatic treatment for his pain complaints. He was routinely prescribed Flomax for urinary issues and Aspirin for associated pain.

         Vermillion's ...


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.