Bradley v. Wexford, Inc.
3:19-cv-00752
S.D. Ill.Aug 6, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Deandre Bradley, a paraplegic inmate at Menard Correctional Center, alleges he received an ill-fitting, heavy wheelchair and lacks a specialized seat cushion, causing pain and pressure sores.
- Bradley sought a proper wheelchair fitting and specialized cushion; he claims Wexford, Dr. Siddiqui, and Ron Skidmore refused referrals or equipment citing cost concerns.
- Bradley alleges Wexford lacks personnel able to fit/prescribe adequate wheelchairs and has a policy/custom of denying care to save costs.
- This action was severed from a larger case and is the claim labeled Count 10 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference); the Court also designated a related Count 13 (ADA/RA employment claim against Wexford).
- The Court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and allowed Count 10 to proceed against Wexford, Siddiqui, and Skidmore, but dismissed Count 13 without prejudice.
- Plaintiff’s request for a TRO was denied; the preliminary injunction request was deferred and defendants were ordered to respond within 14 days of service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to a serious medical need (wheelchair/cushion) | Bradley: ill-fitting wheelchair and lack of cushion are serious medical needs; defendants refused accommodations and specialist referral to save costs | Defendants: (implicit) cost concerns and provided a different wheelchair; may argue no deliberate indifference | Court: Allegations suffice to proceed against Wexford, Siddiqui, and Skidmore under deliberate indifference standard |
| Corporate liability for constitutional violation (Wexford) | Bradley: Wexford's policy/custom to deny care caused the violation | Wexford: a private contractor not liable absent municipal-type policy or custom | Court: Wexford can be liable under § 1983 if policy/custom caused the violation (treated like a municipal entity) |
| ADA claim against Wexford (Title II public-entity requirement) | Bradley: Wexford failed to employ a qualified wheelchair fitter, denying services because of disability | Wexford: not a public entity; Title II applies only to public entities | Court: ADA claim fails because Wexford is not a public entity; dismissed Count 13 |
| Rehabilitation Act claim against Wexford (receipt of federal funds and denial of access) | Bradley: RA violated by failing to employ proper fitter/prescriber | Wexford: (implicit) no allegation it receives federal funds or denied access to a program/service | Court: RA claim dismissed for failure to allege receipt of federal funds or denial of access; Count 13 dismissed |
| Preliminary injunctive relief (TRO / preliminary injunction) | Bradley: seeks TRO/PI to get specialist fitting, new wheelchair, and cushion | Defendants: previously opposed; TRO previously denied | Court: TRO denied again; preliminary injunction deferred pending defendant response |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs analysis)
- Chatham v. Davis, 839 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2016) (deliberate indifference legal standard discussed)
- Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016) (two-part deliberate indifference test)
- Shields v. Illinois Dep't of Corr., 746 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2014) (private contractors can be liable under § 1983 for policy or custom)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom)
- Jackson v. Ill. Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2002) (private corporation treated like municipal entity in § 1983 action)
- Jaros v. Illinois Dep’t of Corrs., 685 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2012) (ADA and RA analysis; RA requires receipt of federal funds)
- Ruffin v. Rockford Mem’l Hosp., 181 Fed. Appx. 582 (7th Cir. 2006) (RA claims not limited to public entities)