Kevin Hearington v. Haresh Pandya
16-1145
| 6th Cir. | May 15, 2017Background
- Hearington suffered a depressed skull fracture and left mandibular fracture, underwent craniotomy and cranioplasty with a titanium mesh plate, and later developed a nonhealing/open scalp wound and chronic headaches.
- Medical staff attempted primary closure but, due to scalp tension, switched to healing by secondary intention; the wound granulated and appeared closed for months before a 2011 infection caused breakdown and a larger open defect that later required plastic surgery in March 2012.
- For pain, Hearington initially sought Ultram (tramadol); MDOC medical staff prescribed Norco and nonnarcotic alternatives (amitriptyline, nortriptyline, carbamazepine/Tegretol, later Pamelor) citing seizure risk and pain-management committee recommendations.
- Hearington sued MDOC, Corizon, regional medical director Pandya, PA Kocha, Dr. Stallman, nurse practitioners Wilson and Rogers, and nurse Ball under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for wound care and pain management; district court granted summary judgment for all defendants.
- The district court dismissed MDOC on Eleventh Amendment grounds, found Hearington waived his claim against Corizon by failing to brief it on appeal, and ruled exhaustion failures for several individual defendants; the Sixth Circuit affirmed on the merits, holding no constitutional violation and therefore declining to resolve exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in wound management (failure to obtain skin graft/adequate surgical intervention) | Hearington: defendants unreasonably delayed or refused plastic surgery/skin graft, causing worsening wound and pain | Defendants: they followed reasonable alternatives (primary then secondary intention), monitored and adjusted care, and referred when appropriate; infection later caused failure | Held: No deliberate indifference — treatment was reasonable medical judgment, disagreement over methods insufficient for Eighth Amendment claim |
| Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in pain management (denial/insufficient narcotics) | Hearington: denial of Ultram and reduction of narcotics caused inadequate pain control | Defendants: prescribed Norco then transitioned to nonnarcotics due to seizure risk and pain-committee review; adjustments and accommodations made | Held: No deliberate indifference — defendants reasonably balanced risks and provided alternatives; disagreement over medications not constitutional violation |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies bars claims against certain defendants | Hearington: challenged district court’s exhaustion ruling (also sought Rule 60(b)(6) relief) | Defendants: argued failure to exhaust administrative remedies for some individual defendants | Held: Court did not reach exhaustion because it found no constitutional violation; district court’s exhaustion rulings remain unaddressed on appeal |
| Corporate liability under § 1983 against Corizon | Hearington: sought to hold Corizon liable for policies/customs causing violation | Corizon: no unconstitutional policy shown | Held: Hearington waived challenge on appeal by not briefing it; claim against Corizon abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs standard)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (subjective knowledge and deliberate indifference standard)
- Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2001) (elements of deliberate indifference; inadequate treatment may be malpractice, not constitutional violation)
- Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County, 390 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. 2004) (definition of objectively serious medical need)
- Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162 (6th Cir. 2011) (disagreement over aggressiveness of treatment does not establish Eighth Amendment violation)