United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DIRECTING
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
John Naylor, an inmate at Pendleton Correctional Facility,
alleges that defendant Dr. Paul Talbot was deliberately
indifferent to several of his serious medical conditions. He
further alleges that he was denied medical treatment and that
his rights were violated pursuant to a policy or practice of
defendant Wexford Health Care Services, Inc.
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on April 22,
2019. Dkt. 26. Mr. Naylor responded with a motion for summary
judgment on May 16, 2019. Dkt. 37. The defendants replied on
May 30, 2019. Dkt. 39.
reasons explained below, the defendants' motion for
summary judgment, dkt , is granted in part and
denied in part, and Mr. Naylor's motion for
summary judgment, dkt. , is denied.
Standard of Review
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 Fed. R. Civ. P.
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 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 in the grant of summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P.
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.
reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, all reasonable
inferences are drawn in favor of the party against whom the
motion at issue was made. Valenti v. Lawson, 889
F.3d 427, 429 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing Tripp v.
Scholz, 872 F.3d 857, 862 (7th Cir. 2017)). The
existence of cross-motions for summary judgment does not
imply that there are no genuine issues of material fact.
R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., LLC v. Int'l Union of
Operating Engineers, Local Union 150, AFL-CIO,
335 F.3d 643, 647 (7th Cir. 2003).
Naylor is incarcerated at the Pendleton Correctional Facility
(“Pendleton”) in Pendleton, Indiana. Defendant
Dr. Paul Talbot is a physician licensed to practice medicine
in the state of Indiana. Since April 1, 2017, Dr. Talbot has
been employed as a physician at Pendleton by Wexford of
Indiana, LLC (“Wexford”), a private company that
contracts with the Indiana Department of Correction
(“IDOC”) to provide medical services to Indiana
prisoners. From July 2015 to March 31, 2017, Dr. Talbot was
employed as a physician at Pendleton by Corizon, LLC
(“Corizon”), the private company that held the
healthcare contract with the IDOC before Wexford. Dkt. 28-1
Talbot has been one of Mr. Naylor's primary care
providers since July 2015. Mr. Naylor's complaint raises
several separate incidents of alleged deliberate
indifference. Specifically, he alleges the following:
A. He has disconnected muscles in his leg that have been left
untreated and he was denied physical therapy for the
B. He has been deprived of medical shoes and custom arch
supports for plantar fasciitis, bone alignment, joint
alignment, and heel spurs;
C. He was denied a referral to a plastic surgeon to repair
his lip so that he will not bite it while eating;
D. His Imodium was switched from Keep on Person
(“KOP”) to Directly Observed Therapy
(“DOT”) and his dosage was reduced;
E. His Zantac was downgraded to Pepcid;
F. He was denied the MRI and CT monitoring that he requested
due to prior head trauma; and
G. Wexford maintains a policy or practice of denying medical
treatment in order to save money.
26, 2015, Mr. Naylor sustained injuries when he was assaulted
by another inmate. Dkt. 28-1 at 2. He was transported to St.
Vincent Hospital in Anderson, Indiana by ambulance. Dkt. 35
at 5. Injuries from the assault included a large laceration
to his left upper lip and a broken right ankle. Id.
at St. Vincent, Mr. Naylor's right wrist and ankle were
x-rayed. There was no fracture to the wrist, but his ankle
was broken in multiple places. No. tissue, muscle, or
ligament damage was noted. Hospital staff immobilized the
ankle by applying a splint. The hospital physicians
recommended follow-up with an orthopedic surgeon within 2-3 d
a ys for further evaluation. Dkt. 35 at 8. The next morning,
Dr. Talbot submitted an urgent request for Mr Naylor to be
scheduled for an appointment with an orthopedist. Dkt. 35 at
laceration was sutured at the hospital. Other than removing
the sutures, there was no recommendation for further
evaluation of the lip laceration made by the hospital
physician. Dkt. 35 at 8.
August 25, 2015, Dr. Kaehr, an outside orthopedic surgeon,
determined that Mr. Naylor required surgical repair of the
ankle fracture. Dkt. 35 at 39. Dr. Kaehr performed surgery on
Naylor's right ankle on September 3, 2015, and performed
a post-operative follow-up exam on October 27, 2015. Dkt. 35
at 48, 60. During the exam, Dr. Kaehr noted that the incision
was well healed and removed the surgical staples. Dkt. 35 at
60. Dr. Kaehr supplied Mr. Naylor with a removable walking
cast. Dr. Kaehr instructed Mr. Naylor to wear the walking
cast at all times while weight-bearing but noted that he
could remove it while showering and sleeping. Dr. Kaehr
recommended follow-up to have the surgical screws removed.
December 10, 2015, Dr. Kaehr evaluated Mr. Naylor, removed
the surgical screws from the right ankle, and requested that
the sutures from the screw removal be removed in 10-14 days.
Dr. Kaehr also obtained an x-ray of Naylor's right ankle,
which indicated that the fracture was healed. Because the
fracture had healed, Dr. Kaehr recommended that Mr. Naylor
resume normal activities and bear his full weight on his
right foot without the walking cast. Dr. Kaehr noted that no
further follow-up was needed. Dkt. 35 at 77. None of Dr.
Kaehr's records indicate that Mr. Naylor had disconnected
muscles that would require future repair or rehabilitation.
Dkt. 28-1 ...