Harwick v. Peters
2:20-cv-01273-JPS
E.D. Wis.May 1, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Dustin Harwick, a Wisconsin prison inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (GERD/IBS, request for special diet) against four defendants: Jean Lutsey (deceased), Dr. Dilip Tannan, nurse Stephanie Hakkila, and Susan Peters.
- After screening, claims were allowed to proceed against Tannan and Hakkila for medical treatment and against Hakkila for allegedly misdocumenting symptoms (leading to a non‑urgent classification).
- Medical record summary (summer 2016): Hakkila saw Harwick on June 27, 2016, listed hemorrhoids as the chief complaint after exam, found no acute signs, recommended laxatives and non‑urgent physician follow‑up; Dr. Tannan saw Harwick in June and August 2016, ordered celiac testing (negative), treated chronic constipation with laxatives and follow‑up, and did not become aware of later special‑diet requests routed through nursing triage.
- Procedurally: Lutsey was noted deceased and, because Harwick did not timely move to substitute the estate, Lutsey was dismissed; State Defendants (Tannan and Hakkila) moved for summary judgment (unopposed by Harwick) and Peters and Harwick filed motions that failed to comply with the Court’s meet‑and‑confer/summary‑judgment protocols.
- Rulings: The court granted summary judgment for the State Defendants (Tannan and Hakkila) — finding no deliberate indifference as a matter of law — dismissed Lutsey, and denied without prejudice Peters’s and Harwick’s summary judgment motions for procedural noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tannan and Hakkila were deliberately indifferent to Harwick’s serious medical needs | Harwick contends defendants failed to provide a medically necessary special diet and that Hakkila failed to document symptoms (e.g., vomiting), resulting in non‑urgent classification and inadequate care | Defendants contend they provided constitutionally adequate care: nursing triage and exams showed no acute findings; Tannan ordered appropriate tests/treatment and followed up; nursing procedures explained documentation and triage | Court: No reasonable juror could find deliberate indifference; granted summary judgment for Tannan and Hakkila and dismissed them |
| Whether Lutsey should be substituted after death and estate added as defendant | Harwick moved to substitute after notice of death | Defendants relied on Rule 25(a) and Harwick failed to timely renew motion | Court: Lutsey dismissed for failure to move within 90 days under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a) |
| Whether Peters’s and Harwick’s summary judgment filings complied with court’s summary judgment protocols | Harwick sought summary judgment; alleged issues against Peters | Peters moved for summary judgment | Court: Both failed to satisfy the scheduling order’s meet‑and‑confer and joint‑facts requirements; motions denied without prejudice; parties must move for leave to refile and comply with protocols |
| Whether an unopposed dispositive motion may be granted | Harwick did not oppose State Defendants’ motion | State Defendants argued the undisputed record supports judgment | Court: Reviewed the motion on the merits despite default; because the uncontroverted record failed to show deliberate indifference, court granted the unopposed motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute and materiality)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (definition of deliberate indifference / substantial risk standard)
- Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 839 F.3d 658 (two‑prong Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference framework)
- Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886 (deference to medical professionals’ treatment decisions)
- Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403 (prisoner‑doctor disagreement generally insufficient for Eighth Amendment liability)
- Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (delay claims require evidence that delay exacerbated injury or prolonged pain)
- Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (court must review unopposed dispositive motions on the merits)