982 F.3d 451
7th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff James Donald had preexisting eye conditions (glaucoma, keratoconus) and a prior left corneal transplant before incarceration.
- From Oct 2014–Sept 2015 Donald was treated at Illinois River CF by optometrist Dr. Anthony Carter and seen once by outside cornea specialist Dr. Steven Sicher; care was characterized as monitoring a stable transplant and treating conjunctivitis/glaucoma.
- Contact-lens procurement was delayed while prison staff attempted (unsuccessfully) to reach transplant surgeon Dr. Catharine Crockett; lenses were eventually supplied in Feb 2015.
- On Oct 19, 2015 Dr. Kurt Osmundson urgently referred Donald offsite for worsening left-eye symptoms; optometrist Dr. Jacqueline Crow (after consulting Dr. Sicher) suspected graft rejection; Dr. Evan Pike later diagnosed a bacterial corneal ulcer and prescribed antibiotics and steroids.
- Donald’s eye rapidly deteriorated over several days; Dr. Sicher found a ruptured globe from Pseudomonas infection and performed enucleation (eye removal).
- Donald sued Dr. Carter, Dr. Osmundson, and Wexford under §1983 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference) and Illinois malpractice law; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on federal claims, granted summary judgment on malpractice as to Dr. Carter, and relinquished remaining state claims; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference — Dr. Carter (§1983) | Carter failed to monitor/recognize early signs, delayed contacts and referral, thereby risking transplant and infection | Carter diagnosed conjunctivitis, treated glaucoma and transplant appropriately, and acted within standard of care; no evidence infection/rejection present while Carter treated him | Court assumed condition could be serious but held no deliberate indifference; summary judgment for Carter on §1983 |
| Medical malpractice — Dr. Carter (state law) | Carter negligently delayed contacts and follow-up, breaching standard and causing loss of eye | Donald lacks admissible expert proof of breach or causation; Carter’s care met standard | Court retained supplemental jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Carter because plaintiff cannot establish malpractice without expert proof |
| Deliberate indifference — Dr. Osmundson (§1983) | Osmundson should have ensured ophthalmologist saw Donald, guaranteed specialist care and timely meds | Osmundson made urgent referral, admitted and monitored Donald, followed specialists’ recommendations, and ordered/authorized prescribed meds | Summary judgment for Osmundson; no evidence he knew of inadequate care or disregarded a substantial risk |
| Monell liability — Wexford | Corporate policies/customs caused or permitted the constitutional deprivation | Municipal (or private‑company) liability depends on an underlying individual constitutional violation | Summary judgment for Wexford because individual defendants did not commit constitutional violations, so Monell liability fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
- Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability for constitutional violations based on policy or custom)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and reasonable jury inquiry)
- Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2012) (elements of deliberate indifference claim)
- Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2011) (deliberate indifference framework)
- Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference discussion)
- Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 839 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2016) (Monell applies to private companies acting under color of state law)
- Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2015) (examples of blatantly inappropriate medical treatment supporting deliberate indifference)
- Lewis v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 561 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2009) (only admissible evidence, including expert testimony, may defeat summary judgment)