Diggs v. Ghosh
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4371
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Herbert Diggs, an Illinois prisoner, suffered a complete right ACL tear diagnosed by MRI in 2009 and sued in 2014 alleging deliberate indifference and IIED; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- Early treatment: Dr. Ghosh ordered MRI and referred Diggs to UIC; UIC orthopedist Dr. Mejia recommended aggressive PT and improved pre-op condition before surgery; follow-up and PT were delayed or intermittent.
- Between 2009–2014, multiple prison medical directors (Ghosh, Carter, Obaisi) and Wexford approvals influenced referrals; Diggs repeatedly complained, received some PT, permits, and pain meds, but experienced long gaps and delays in obtaining a surgical evaluation.
- Warden Hardy was told multiple times by Diggs that he awaited ACL surgery and filed grievances; Hardy told him to raise issues with medical staff and took no further action.
- District court found defendants provided permissible medical care and that Diggs failed to show Hardy knew of mistreatment; it also rejected IIED and ineffective-assistance arguments; the Seventh Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference by treating doctors (Ghosh, Carter, Obaisi) | Doctors delayed/ignored specialists' recommendations and failed to obtain timely surgical evaluation or adequate PT | Doctors provided constitutionally adequate care (pain meds, PT, permits); no doctor said surgery was required | Vacated summary judgment as to these doctors — material facts exist to send deliberate-indifference claims to a jury |
| Deliberate indifference by Warden Hardy | Hardy knew from repeated reports/grievances that Diggs awaited surgery and did nothing to intervene | Hardy lacked knowledge that medical staff was mistreating Diggs and merely directed him to medical staff | Vacated summary judgment as to Hardy — disputed evidence that Hardy knew and failed to act suffices for jury issue |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | Emotional harm from prolonged untreated injury and administrative indifference | Conduct was not extreme or outrageous; defendants provided some treatment and responses | Affirmed for defendants — conduct not extreme/outrageous under Illinois law |
| Ineffective assistance of recruited counsel in civil case | Counsel failed to contest defendants’ statements of fact properly | No Sixth Amendment right to counsel in civil suits; district court appropriately considered counsel request | Affirmed — no constitutional right to effective counsel in civil litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (explains deliberate-indifference subjective knowledge standard)
- White v. City of Chicago, 829 F.3d 837 (summary judgment review principles in Seventh Circuit)
- Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (difference of medical opinion not automatic deliberate indifference)
- Conley v. Birch, 796 F.3d 742 (plaintiff need not show literal ignoring to prove deliberate indifference)
- Zaya v. Sood, 836 F.3d 800 (departure from accepted professional practice can show lack of medical judgment)
- Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (limits on nonmedical officials’ reliance on medical staff)
- Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (when complaint to administrators does not establish deliberate indifference)
- Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (administrators’ failure to act after grievances can support deliberate-indifference claim)
- Dixon v. County of Cook, 819 F.3d 343 (elements of IIED under Illinois law)
- Pendell v. City of Peoria, 799 F.3d 916 (no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in civil cases)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (district courts’ obligations in appointing counsel for pro se civil litigants)