Damon Goodloe v. Kul Sood
947 F.3d 1026
| 7th Cir. | 2020Background
- Goodloe, an Illinois DOC inmate, arrived at Hill Correctional Center in July 2013 with rectal bleeding and severe pain; initial treatment by Dr. Kul Sood was for hemorrhoids without a rectal exam.
- In December 2013 a nurse practitioner diagnosed anal condyloma (warts); Goodloe repeatedly told staff the pain was internal and not caused by the warts.
- Starting spring 2014 Dr. Sood (after consulting Dr. Neil Fisher) treated Goodloe with topical trichloroacetic acid (TCAA); the treatment increased pain and provided no improvement.
- By mid-June 2014 Sood and Fisher agreed a colorectal specialist evaluation was needed, but an actual specialist exam did not occur until September 22, 2014.
- A colorectal specialist diagnosed an anal fissure and Goodloe had surgery on October 3, 2014 with immediate pain relief.
- Goodloe sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (against Sood and Fisher) and First Amendment retaliation (against Sood); the district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Seventh Circuit vacated as to Sood (Eighth Amendment) and affirmed in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference — Dr. Sood (persistence in ineffective treatment / delay to specialty care) | Sood persisted with TCAA known to be ineffective and delayed specialist referral despite repeated complaints and a consult acknowledging no improvement | Sood pursued a measured, conservative course of treatment; any scheduling delay was administrative and not his fault | Reversed district court; material fact disputes exist — claim against Sood survives summary judgment and is remanded for trial |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference — Dr. Fisher (consulting physician) | Fisher’s consults contributed to continued ineffective treatment and delay | Fisher only advised Sood; he did not directly treat Goodloe or have sufficient knowledge to be deliberately indifferent | Affirmed summary judgment for Fisher; no evidence Fisher had the requisite subjective culpability |
| First Amendment retaliation — Dr. Sood (grievances) | Sood retaliated by denying/delaying proper care in response to Goodloe’s grievances | No evidence treatment decisions were caused by or motivated by grievances; timing not suspicious | Affirmed summary judgment for Sood on retaliation; record lacks evidence of retaliatory animus |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness and disregard of substantial risk)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (medical malpractice by prison staff does not automatically equal Eighth Amendment violation)
- Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (persistence in a known ineffective treatment can show deliberate indifference)
- Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016) (inexplicable delay in providing care can constitute deliberate indifference)
- Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2011) (deliberate indifference requires more than negligence)
- Williams v. Liefer, 491 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2007) (delay that prolongs suffering can support an Eighth Amendment claim)