James Hotchkiss v. A. David
713 F. App'x 501
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- James Hotchkiss, an Illinois inmate, alleged severe left leg and hip pain, balance problems, and falls after entering state prison; he previously used customized shoes with a 1/2-inch lift for the left foot.
- Upon transfer, Hotchkiss’s custom shoes were removed; prison-issued boots exacerbated his symptoms. He repeatedly complained to medical staff and visited the infirmary frequently over ~16 months.
- Medical responses primarily consisted of pain medication, intermittent permits (low-bunk, slow-walk), and delayed provision of a cane; no timely physical exam, X-rays, or orthotic shoes were provided until much later.
- Hotchkiss sued Dr. Alfonso David and nurse practitioner Blake Woods under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; he proceeded in forma pauperis.
- The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissed it with prejudice, and assessed a strike under § 1915A(g), finding the claim frivolous and that treatment provided was sufficient as a matter of law.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated the dismissal as to Dr. David (finding Hotchkiss plausibly alleged that David continued an ineffective course of treatment and unreasonably delayed corrective care) but affirmed dismissal as to Woods (Hotchkiss did not press Woods’s role on appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. David was deliberately indifferent by continuing only pain medication and not addressing leg-length discrepancy (no exam/X-ray; no orthotic shoes) | David failed to treat underlying cause, discontinued effective prior treatment (custom shoes), and prolonged pain and falls | Medical decisions (meds, permitting) were within professional judgment; some treatment was provided so no Eighth Amendment violation | Court: Hotchkiss plausibly alleged deliberate indifference; vacated dismissal as to David and remanded |
| Whether delay in providing corrective treatment (heel insert/shoes/cane) amounted to constitutionally impermissible delay | 16-month delay of simple/easy corrective measures exacerbated pain and balance problems, supporting an Eighth Amendment claim | Delay was not constitutionally significant because Hotchkiss received ongoing care and medication | Court: Delay plausibly unconstitutional given ease of treatment and worsening condition; supports claim at pleading stage |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice as frivolous and denial of leave to amend was appropriate; whether nurse Woods should remain defendant | Complaint was not frivolous; factual allegations and records could support claim; plaintiff sought relief vs. Woods too | District court viewed records as showing adequate care; treated claim as frivolous and denied amendment | Court: Reversal as to frivolous finding and denial of leave to amend re: David; affirmed dismissal as to Woods because appellant abandoned Woods on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2015) (pleading-stage standard; accept complaint allegations as true)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard under the Eighth Amendment)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (medical indifference and inappropriate treatment can violate the Eighth Amendment)
- McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2010) (choosing an easier, less efficacious treatment can show deliberate indifference; delay analysis)
- Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2011) (refusal of simple corrective measures can indicate inadequate medical care)