United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
Beatty, Sr., #876231 Correctional Industrial Facility
Electronic Service Participant - Court Only Douglass R.
Bitner KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, PC. Jeb Adam Crandall BLEEKE
DILLON CRANDALL ATTORNEYS
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, Dkt.  filed by Defendants M. Person
(“Dr. Person”), L. Bergeson (“Nurse
Bergeson”), Tina Collins (“Nurse Collins”),
Corizon Health (“Corizon”), and Wexford Medical
of Indiana (“Wexford”) (collectively, “the
Defendants”). Also pending are two Motions to
Reconsider Denial of Summary Judgment, Dkts.  and ,
in which Plaintiff Arthur Beatty, Sr. (“Mr.
Beatty”) seeks reconsideration of the Court's Entry
denying his prior motion for partial summary judgment and
request for injunctive relief, (see Dkt. ). Mr. Beatty
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
each of the Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
For the following reasons, the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, Dkt. , is granted and
Mr. Beatty's Motions to Reconsider, Dkt.  and Dkt.
, are denied.
Summary Judgment Standard
motion for summary judgment asks the court to find that a
trial is unnecessary because there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(a). As the current version of Rule 56
makes clear, whether a party asserts that a fact is
undisputed or genuinely disputed, the party must support the
asserted fact by citing to particular parts of the record,
including depositions, documents, or affidavits. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(1)(A). A party can also support a fact by showing that
the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence
of a genuine dispute or that the adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(1)(B). Affidavits or declarations must be made on
personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in
evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify
on the matters stated. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(4). Failure to
properly support a fact in opposition to a movant's
factual assertion can result in the movant's fact being
considered undisputed, and potentially relevant in the
granting of summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court need only
consider disputed facts that are material to the decision. A
disputed fact is material if it might affect the outcome of
the suit under the governing law. Williams v.
Brooks, 809 F.3d 936, 941-42 (7th Cir. 2016). “A
genuine dispute as to any material fact exists ‘if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.'” Daugherty v.
Page, 906 F.3d 606, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
summary judgment, a party must show the court what evidence
it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its
version of the events. Gekas v. Vasilades, 814 F.3d
890, 896 (7th Cir. 2016). The moving party is entitled to
summary judgment if no reasonable fact-finder could return a
verdict for the non-moving party. Nelson v. Miller,
570 F.3d 868, 875 (7th Cir. 2009). The court views the record
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws
all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.
Skiba v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708, 717
(7th Cir. 2018). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility
determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are
left to the fact-finder. Miller v. Gonzalez, 761
F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014). The court need only consider
the cited materials, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3), and the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly assured the district
courts that they are not required to “scour every inch
of the record” for evidence that is potentially
relevant to the summary judgment motion before them.
Grant v. Trustees of Indiana University, 870 F.3d
562, 573-74 (7th Cir. 2017). Any doubt as to the existence of
a genuine issue for trial is resolved against the moving
party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
to reconsider “serve a limited function: to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.
Nokes, 263 F.R.D. 518, 526 (N.D. Ind. 2009). A motion to
reconsider is appropriate where the court has misunderstood a
party, where the court has made a decision outside the
adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties,
where the court has made an error of apprehension (not of
reasoning), where a significant change in the law has
occurred, or where significant new facts have been
discovered. Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales,
Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990). A party
seeking reconsideration cannot introduce new evidence that
could have been discovered before the original motion or
rehash previously rejected arguments. Caisse Nationale de
Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th
Beatty is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the
Correctional Industrial Facility (“CIF”) in
Pendleton, Indiana. In 2016, he developed a severe foot/ankle
injury. He alleges that he received inadequate medical
treatment from the Defendants since that time, in violation
of his Eighth Amendment rights. Mr. Beatty has sued Dr.
Person, Lisa Bergeson, R.N. who was the Health Services
Administrator for Corizon, and Nurse Collins for the care
they provided (or failed to provide) to him. He has also sued
Corizon and Wexford, the companies who contracted with the
Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) to
provide medical care to state prisoners. On March 31, 2017,
the contract between Corizon and the IDOC ended, and Wexford
became the contracted health care provider on April 1, 2017.
Medical Record Review
summary, Mr. Beatty's medical records reflect the
following. See Dkt. 49-1 (Dr. Person Decl. at
¶¶ 7-23). He first reported symptoms of left ankle
pain and swelling on June 15, 2016, using a Request For
Health Care form (“RFHC”). Dkt. -2 at 1. In
response, nurses provided ibuprofen and an Ace wrap on June
17, 2016. Id. at 1, 4. He filed another RFHC on June
22, 2016 stating that he was very flat footed and needed high
support gel insoles. He also requested to see a doctor
without charge. Id. at 5. He received gel insoles on
June 29, 2016. Id. at 5, 7. Mr. Beatty filed another
RFHC on June 27, 2016, stating that his ankle was still
swollen and he needed an x-ray. Nurse Bergeson saw him on
June 30, 2016, and assured Mr. Beatty he would be seen by the
medical provider as soon as the schedule allowed.
Id. at 8-9. In June, Mr. Beatty was prescribed
aspirin for pain. Id. at 10.
1, 2016, Mr. Beatty submitted a RFHC stating that the insoles
did not help and requested to be seen by a provider, as well
as an x-ray or CT scan. On July 3, 2016, Mr. Beatty was told
that he had already been referred to a provider for this
issue. Id. at 11-12. Dr. Person saw him on July 8,
2016, and Mr. Beatty complained that the gel insoles did not
provide enough arch support for his flat feet and that he was
in pain. Id. at 13-15. Dr. Person assessed pes
planus (flat feet) in both feet and noted Mr. Beatty had
tried the arch supports provided but he was not getting
enough arch height. Id. at 14.
24, 2016, Mr. Beatty submitted a RFHC stating that his left
ankle had been hurting, but now had a burning feeling. He
requested to be seen by a provider and to have an x-ray
taken. Id. at 16. On July 26, 2016, Dr. Person saw
Mr. Beatty for a chronic care visit. Id. at 17-21.
Mr. Beatty continued to complain of left ankle pain. Dr.
Person performed an examination of the ankle and diagnosed a
left ankle sprain. He ordered a large lace-up ankle brace for
extra stability and submitted a request for physical therapy
so Mr. Beatty could learn additional range of motion
exercises. In his request for physical therapy, Dr. Person
noted that Mr. Beatty had left lateral ankle pain and
swelling for four months. The pain had started while he was
working in the brake shop, but he had no known acute injury.
Dr. Person requested a formal physical therapy visit to see
if other conservative measures might be beneficial.
Id. at 22-24.
request for physical therapy was approved August 2, 2016, and
Mr. Beatty saw the physical therapist on August 5,
2016. Id. at 25, 28. The therapist
noted that Mr. Beatty previously worked in the brake shop and
stood for long hours on a concrete floor and pressed a pedal
with his left foot repeatedly. Mr. Beatty was educated on
flexibility and strengthening exercises for his foot and
ankle and told to try the exercises for a month. Id.
August 9, 2016, Mr. Beatty received the large lace-up ankle
brace. Id. at p. 30-31. During August 2016, he was
prescribed aspirin for pain. Id. at 32. In September
2016, he submitted three RFHCs reporting continued ankle and
foot pain and seeking an x-ray or CT scan. In response, on
September 5, 2016, he was scheduled to see the doctor.
Id. at 33-34.
Person saw Mr. Beatty again on September 19, 2016 and
performed a physical examination. Id. at 38-40. Mr.
Beatty had moderately reduced range of motion to the left
ankle. Dr. Person again assessed an ankle sprain and
submitted a request for Mr. Beatty to see an orthopedist due
to his failure to improve. Id. at 41-45. The request
was approved September 20, 2016. Id. at 46.
September 26, 2016, Mr. Beatty saw orthopedist Dr. David
Kaehr. Id. at 47. Dr. Kaehr believed Mr.
Beatty's ankle injury was caused by overuse of the left
foot and ankle by operating a machine in the brake shop that
required him to wear steel-toed boots and repetitively
plantar flex and dorsiflex his left ankle. On examination,
Dr. Kaehr noted the following:
[T]he patient appears to be in no acute distress. His left
ankle is definitely swollen compared to the right. He is
tender to palpation over the anterior talofibular and
calcaneal fibular ligaments as well as over the peroneal
tendons. He also complained of pain with passive dorsiflexion
of his ankle as well as with active dorsiflexion of the
ankle. This pain is anterior over the tendons of the anterior
compartment. He is minimally tender medially. The patient has
severe pes planus bilaterally. When he stands with his heels
together he has marked valgus of his ankles but this is
symmetric. He has a 2 dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial
Id. at 51. Ankle x-rays were taken and were normal
except for the pes planus. Dr. Kaehr did not believe that
further bracing of the ankle would help. He opined that the
best thing for Mr. Beatty was to have custom made arch
inserts for his severe pes planus which hopefully would
correct his marked ankle valgus and hopefully correct his
pain. Id. at 52. Dr. Kaehr stated that he would see
Mr. Beatty on an as-needed basis. Id.
September 27, 2016, Dr. Person followed Dr. Kaehr's
recommendations and requested a consultation with Hanger
Orthotics, a company that provides custom orthotics.
Id. at 53-57. The request was approved September 29,
2016. Id. at 58. In September 2016, Mr. Beatty was
prescribed aspirin for pain. Id. at 60.
September 30 to October 21, 2016, Mr. Beatty submitted three
RFHCs requesting a foot soak tub, to speak with the provider
about x-ray results, stating that the bone was out of place
and still swollen, and then complaining about the wait to see
the doctor. Id. at 59, 61, 62. Nurse Collins
responded to each RFHC and instructed Mr. Beatty to discuss
his requests at his upcoming chronic care appointment.
October 27, 2016, Mr. Beatty met with a representative from
Hanger Clinic for an evaluation for orthopedic footwear.
Id. at 65, 69. During October 2016, Mr. Beatty was
prescribed aspirin for pain. Id. at 70.
November 12, 2016, Mr. Beatty submitted an RFHC stating his
ankle was still hurting and requesting a bottom bunk pass
because he could not climb or jump up or down without extreme
pain, but Dr. Person informed him that his condition did not
meet the bottom bunk criteria. Id. at 71-72.
Corizon's policy on January 17, 2017 was that inmates
with fractures and sprains met the standard qualifications
for a bottom bunk pass. Dkt. -2 at p. 6.
November 17, 2016, Mr. Beatty submitted a RFHC asking whether
the shoes had been approved yet and stating that his ankle
hurt every day and that he needed relief. Dkt. -2 at 73.
On November 28, 2016, Mr. Beatty was told they are still
waiting on the estimate before it could be submitted for
approval and that Ms. King called Hanger Clinic that day to
follow up. Id.
November 24, 2016, Mr. Beatty sent a RFHC stating that he
continued to have pain and swelling and requested an MRI/CT
scan to find out what is causing the pain. In response, Mr.
Beatty was ...