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.

Kyner v. Loveridge

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

May 17, 2018

CHRIS KYNER, Plaintiff,
v.
BENJAMIN R. LOVERIDGE, et al. Defendants.

          JEB ADAM CRANDALL BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL ATTORNEYS

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

          HON. JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIF JUDGE

         Plaintiff Chris Kyner's amended complaint asserts that he injured his face in a fall when he was housed at the New Castle Correctional Facility and that he received constitutionally inadequate care for his injuries from the defendants.

         The defendants move for partial judgment on the pleadings arguing that certain of Mr. Kyner's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

         I. Standard of Review

         After the pleadings are closed but early enough not to delay trial, a defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings for reason that a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). A motion for judgment on the pleadings is governed by the same standards as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 727-28 (7th Cir. 2014). The complaint must state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has factual plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A reviewing court draws all reasonable inferences and facts in favor of the non-movant, but need not accept as true any legal assertions. Vesely v. Armslist LLC, 762 F.3d 661, 664-65 (7th Cir. 2014).

         II. Relevant Facts

         Chris Kyner is currently incarcerated at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, but has sued certain medical providers based on care that he received while at New Castle Correctional Facility. Those defendants are Dr. Loveridge, Deanna Hauri, Jane Gregory, Nicole Davis, Megan Miller, and Meranda Vicente. Mr. Kyner filed his original Complaint on August 3, 2017. In his original Complaint, he identified as defendants Dr. Loveridge, Deanna Hauri, Jane Gregory, Nicole Davis, and Meranda Vicente. On December 6, 2017, Mr. Kyner filed an amended complaint which added Megan Miller as a defendant.

         The following facts are as pleaded in Mr. Kyner's amended complaint, dkt. 35, and are assumed to be true for the purposes of this Order only.

         On June 9, 2015, Mr. Kyner slipped and fell on the right side of his face. As a result, several hard-plastic objects were imbedded in his face, although he initially did not realize this. It was not until June 12, 2015, that Mr. Kyner noticed a small object in the right side of his jaw and some numbness on the right side of his face. On that day, he hand-delivered a health services request to the nursing staff during rounds in his unit. He requested to be x-rayed as soon as possible and to have any objects removed.

         By June 14, 2015, the numbness in Mr. Kyner's right face had expanded and he experienced swelling. He handed a request seeking emergency medical care to Nurse Hauri on the evening of June 14, 2015, and verbally told her of his complaints. Nurse Hauri allegedly acknowledged that Mr. Kyner had swelling and a possible infection in his face, but Nurse Hauri ignored the symptoms, and told him to submit another request. After speaking with Nurse Hauri, Mr. Kyner alleges that he developed escalating pain in his right cheek and he had difficulty sleeping or lying down on the right side.

         On June 15, 2015, Mr. Kyner attended a sick call appointment with a Nurse Vicente. He advised her of his symptoms, including the pain, and the presence of foreign objects in his face. He also told her he suspected an infection and requested pain medication and antibiotics. Nurse Vicente allegedly refused to physically examine him, but acknowledged the possible infection, swelling, and mobile objects in his right cheek. She denied his requests for medication and advised him he would be scheduled for “this Thursday” - June 18, 2015 - with the onsite practitioner.

         Although he claims it was not accurately documented in the record, Mr. Kyner claims his pain worsened with swelling and itching. He apparently did not see anyone on June 18, 2015, so he submitted another request for medical treatment. On June 23, 2015, Nurse Vicente responded to the request in writing, advising him that his appointment had been rescheduled to July 2, 2015. On June 22, 2015, Nurse Hauri repeated this statement to Mr. Kyner as well. He continued to inform the nursing staff that he was experiencing pain, difficulty sleeping, and the inability to lie on the right side of his face. By June 27, 2015, Mr. Kyner's face had become very swollen, painful, numb, and itchy. He reported these issues to various nurses.

         Dr. Loveridge saw Mr. Kyner on July 2, 2015. Mr. Kyner related to the doctor his history of injury, severe, ongoing pain, worsening numbness, and swelling since the night of June 14, 2015. During the physical evaluation, Dr. Loveridge felt an object in Mr. Kyner's right upper gums and another three centimeters under the right eye. These were mobile and tender to move. Dr. Loveridge noted that Mr. Kyner had atypical face pain, mild erythema, and edema. Mr. Kyner claims Dr. Loveridge also acknowledged a possible infection but did not note it in his records. Dr. Loveridge told Mr. Kyner he would be set for an x-ray on Monday, July 6, 2015, but he would likely need to reopen the laceration and remove the ...


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.