Kathy Boyer v. Robert Lacy
665 F. App'x 476
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kathy Boyer, incarcerated at Huron Valley, suffered a right proximal humerus fracture and shoulder dislocation after a March 14, 2012 fall; ER discharge advised orthopedic follow-up within five days and recommended pain medication and sling.
- On return, Senior Site Physician Dr. Robert Lacy gave conservative orders (pain meds, bottom-bunk/lay-in, wheelchair) and instructed a follow-up; he did not immediately schedule an orthopedic consult or admit Boyer to the infirmary.
- Over the next six weeks Boyer experienced worsening bruising, swelling, and limited care; an orthopedic consult was not requested until April 10 and performed April 25, six weeks after the injury; an orthopedic surgeon later recommended possible expedited surgery but subsequent specialist follow-up favored conservative care.
- Boyer had limited or no narcotic pain medication for a 19-day period (April 6–24) according to medical records; she was admitted to the infirmary on April 25 and received renewed pain control and monitoring thereafter.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Dr. Lacy on Boyer’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 deliberate indifference claim and on James Boyer’s derivative loss-of-consortium claim; Judge Stranch dissented, concluding genuine issues of material fact existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to refer to orthopedic specialist promptly | Boyer: ER recommended ortho follow-up within 5 days; Lacy waited six weeks—this delay was "woefully inadequate" and shows deliberate indifference | Lacy: Conservative, non‑operative treatment by primary care was reasonable; responsibility lay with follow-up physician (Dr. Johnson); no deliberate disregard | Dissent: Genuine dispute for jury — a reasonable juror could find Lacy inferred risk and delayed specialist care unreasonably; majority affirmed summary judgment for Lacy per district court reasoning |
| Failure to timely refill pain medication | Boyer: Lacy refused to renew narcotics and ordered non-narcotic relief that took weeks to obtain, leaving her in substantial pain | Lacy: Boyer still had some Vicodin through April 5; no evidence she requested refills in the critical period; reliance on follow-up/provider was reasonable | Dissent: Pre‑April 6 record insufficient to show Lacy inferred risk of lack of meds for Apr 6–24; no jury question on refill claim alone |
| Failure to admit to infirmary | Boyer: Infirmary admission was recommended and would have allowed closer monitoring and earlier specialist referral | Lacy: Lay‑in/bottom‑bunk details provided equivalent care; infirmary offered no additional necessary treatment initially | Dissent: Standing alone, insufficient evidence for infirmary claim; under totality of circumstances, failure to admit plus other delays could support jury finding of deliberate indifference |
| Loss of consortium (derivative claim) | Mr. Boyer: Derivative state-law claim may proceed if Mrs. Boyer’s § 1983 claim survives | Lacy: Claim not cognizable under § 1983 and no actual additional damages shown given preexisting condition | Dissent: Derivative Michigan loss-of-consortium is cognizable via pendent jurisdiction and may proceed if underlying claim survives; factual dispute over additional impairment exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (subjective deliberate indifference requires awareness of substantial risk)
- Santiago v. Ringle, 734 F.3d 585 (delays or interruptions in prescribed treatment can violate Eighth Amendment)
- Quigley v. Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F.3d 675 (deliberate indifference may be inferred from obvious risks or circumstantial evidence)
- Villegas v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 709 F.3d 563 (resolving factual disputes on jury question for deliberate indifference)
- Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295 (§ 1983 liability not based on respondeat superior; supervisory liability standards)
- Claybrook v. Birchwell, 199 F.3d 350 (§ 1983 cause of action is personal to direct victim; limits on third‑party emotional‑distress claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine issue standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standards)