David Bentz v. Parthasarathi Ghosh
16-1697
| 7th Cir. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiff David Bentz, an Illinois prisoner, alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference and state-law negligence claims based on untreated tooth decay, pain, swelling, and denied pain medication while housed at three prisons between 2010–2013.
- Bentz named multiple defendants: prison medical directors and dentists (Drs. Ghosh, Tilden, Stelfox), a dental assistant (Luce), Menard correctional officers (including Sadler and Lair), the Menard warden, and other named/unidentified staff.
- At screening the district court allowed deliberate-indifference claims against medical staff and the Menard warden, dismissed most claims against nonmedical staff, and allowed negligence claims; later the court dismissed some negligence and malpractice claims for failure to comply with Illinois affidavit requirements.
- After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for Drs. Ghosh and Stelfox and others on exhaustion and merits grounds, dismissed unidentified defendants under Rule 41(b), and denied a preliminary injunction for immediate pain treatment.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit vacated summary judgment as to Drs. Ghosh and Stelfox (finding triable issues on deliberate indifference), reinstated Eighth Amendment and common-law negligence claims against officers Sadler and Lair, affirmed dismissal as to other defendants, and vacated denial of preliminary injunction as to the Menard warden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Ghosh was deliberately indifferent by denying immediate pain meds and only referring Bentz to a dentist | Bentz: he told Ghosh about severe pain, visible jaw swelling, and eating problems; Ghosh ignored need for immediate relief | Ghosh: Bentz did not report pain at appointment; referral to dentist was appropriate medical response | Vacated summary judgment; genuine dispute whether Ghosh knew pain was serious and failed to act may support Eighth Amendment claim |
| Whether Dr. Stelfox was deliberately indifferent after allegedly pronouncing nothing wrong without exam and denying treatment | Bentz: Stelfox ignored complaint of abscess and swollen jaw causing weeks of severe pain | Stelfox: alleged lack of exhaustion and that no deliberate indifference occurred | Vacated summary judgment; exhaustion satisfied for emergency grievance and triable issues exist on deliberate indifference |
| Whether Bentz exhausted administrative remedies against Dr. Tilden and Menard warden | Bentz: he filed grievances and received no response | Defendants: Bentz failed to timely exhaust/appeal; his testimony not credible | Affirmed re: Tilden and warden in part; district court credibility finding as to Tilden upheld; warden ruling re exhaustion affirmed except for preliminary injunction issue later vacated |
| Whether nonmedical staff (Sadler, Lair) can be liable for deliberate indifference and negligence | Bentz: their responses to his reports (acknowledging seriousness or refusing help) show knowledge and reckless disregard | Defendants: many nonmedical complaints dismissed as asserting only minor/chronic pain; sovereign immunity bars state-law claims | Vacated dismissal as to Sadler and Lair: Eighth Amendment and negligence claims plausible; sovereign immunity does not bar negligence for alleged constitutional/statutory violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment)
- Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2010) (tooth decay can be objectively serious)
- Rivera v. Gupta, 836 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 2016) (medical staff may be liable for discounting symptoms without investigation)
- Dobbey v. Mitchell-Lawshea, 806 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2015) (dentist’s failure to promptly treat an abscess can be deliberate indifference)
- Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) (exhaustion hearing procedure)
- Thornton v. Snyder, 428 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2005) (emergency grievance procedures and exhaustion requirements)
- Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2009) (limits on nonmedical staff liability for medical treatment decisions)
- Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard for nonmedical officials’ Eighth Amendment liability)
- Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2012) (pain affecting daily living can be irreparable harm for injunctive relief)
- Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. 2011) (standards for preliminary injunctive relief in prisoner context)