Dennis Davis v. Francis Kayira
938 F.3d 910
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- Dennis Davis, an incarcerated dialysis patient, reported weakness and "fuzzy" mind after Saturday dialysis; nurse called on-call Medical Director Dr. Francis Kayira.
- On the call Dr. Kayira asked about stroke signs (facial droop, drooling, asymmetrical grip); the nurse answered no, so he attributed symptoms to prior dialysis side effects and ordered monitoring.
- Over the weekend nursing notes documented progressive left-sided weakness and a technician note indicating asymmetrical grip, but there is no evidence anyone informed Dr. Kayira before Monday.
- Dr. Kayira examined Davis Monday, diagnosed a stroke, and transferred him to the hospital; Davis later sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Eighth Amendment) and for state-law medical malpractice.
- The magistrate judge struck Davis’s belatedly disclosed expert as untimely; the district court granted summary judgment for Dr. Kayira on deliberate indifference (no subjective awareness of stroke risk) and on malpractice (no admissible expert); the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Kayira should have inferred stroke from post-dialysis symptoms and acted more urgently | Nurse told Kayira there was no asymmetry or drooling; prior similar dialysis side effects made stroke less likely; Kayira ordered monitoring | Summary judgment for Kayira — no evidence he was aware of facts supporting inference of stroke or that he actually drew that inference |
| Receipt of new weekend information | Weekend notes show worsening and technician observed asymmetry; staff may have called Kayira again | No evidence Kayira was notified over the weekend; notes do not show he received updates | Kayira did not learn new info until Monday; plaintiff offered no admissible evidence staff called him |
| Exclusion of plaintiff's expert (procedural preservation) | Magistrate erred in striking expert; local rules permissive about appeals from magistrate orders | Plaintiff failed to timely object to magistrate’s nondispositive order under Rule 72(a), forfeiting appellate review | Affirmed — Davis forfeited challenge by not raising timely objection in district court |
| Illinois medical-malpractice proof without expert | Certificate of merit and unsigned report show malpractice; malpractice is obvious | The only identified expert was excluded; the unsigned/anonymous certificate cannot lay foundation | Malpractice claim fails — no admissible expert testimony to establish standard of care or breach |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment requires provision of medical care to prisoners)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge of substantial risk)
- Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (framework for objectively serious condition and deliberate indifference)
- Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 839 F.3d 658 (deference to medical judgment; lack of expert evidence undermines Eighth Amendment claim)
- Conley v. Birch, 796 F.3d 742 (contrast where nurse’s report made need for x-ray obvious and doctor could be found deliberately indifferent)
- Sullivan v. Edward Hosp., 806 N.E.2d 645 (under Illinois law, malpractice requires expert proof unless negligence is within lay knowledge)