Key v. Nwozo, 3:17-cv-00920

Robert Key, a Tennessee prisoner, alleges he fractured his left clavicle/shoulder while exercising on June 26, 2016, and that prison medical staff provided minimal treatment for months.
Initial nursing staff deferred treatment until Monday; X-rays within days (reviewed by NP Seahorn and Dr. Nwozo) confirmed a broken clavicle with a previously implanted plate in multiple pieces.
Orthopedist Dr. Ronald Baker ordered urgent surgery, a sling, and stronger pain medication (Lortab); Defendants Nwozo and Seahorn repeatedly refused those orders and largely provided only Tylenol.
Plaintiff’s repeated sick-call requests and grievances were ignored; Defendants allegedly tied treatment decisions to Plaintiff’s behavior and refused to see him despite requests from officers and the warden.
Medical director Dr. Wiley later acknowledged the urgent need and adjusted medications but did not promptly reschedule surgery; surgery was delayed roughly ten months, after which Plaintiff underwent a more complex repair and later developed post‑operative complications.
Court conducted initial review under the PLRA and § 1915/1915A and found Plaintiff stated a non‑frivolous Eighth Amendment deliberate‑indifference claim against Defendants; process was ordered to issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need	Key: broken clavicle required urgent surgery/sling/pain meds; defendants ignored orders and pleas	Nwozo/Seahorn: treatment decisions were medical judgments; not an emergency; Tylenol sufficient	Court: Allegations sufficient at screening to state a deliberate‑indifference claim
Whether medical delay/denial amounted to more than negligence	Key: prolonged 10‑month delay and minimal care amounted to deliberate indifference	Defendants: disagreement over adequacy of care is medical judgment, not Eighth Amendment violation	Court: Delay and lack of ordered treatment plausibly rose to "so woefully inadequate as to amount to no treatment"
Whether alleged animus/behavioral bias impacted medical decisions	Key: doctors tied treatment to Plaintiff’s behavior and threatened to withhold care for misconduct	Defendants: (implied) conduct/behavior justified triage and treatment refusal	Court: Allegations that behavior-based animus influenced withholding care support deliberate‑indifference claim
Whether supervisory defendant (Wiley) is liable	Key: Wiley reviewed file, acknowledged need, adjusted meds but did not ensure surgery/rescheduling	Wiley: limited involvement and corrective steps taken; medical discretion	Court: At screening, Wiley’s role in overseeing care and failure to ensure surgery plausibly states a claim

Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2009) (complaint viewed in plaintiff's favor on initial review)
Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2009) (pleading standards)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings liberally construed)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
Brown v. Matauszak, [citation="415 F. App'x 608"] (6th Cir.) (court cannot create claims a plaintiff has not pleaded)
Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley, 675 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2012) (elements of § 1983)
Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2003) (§ 1983 causation and elements)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge of and disregard of excessive risk)
Ruiz v. Martin, [citation="72 F. App'x 271"] (6th Cir.) (treatment so inadequate it amounts to no treatment)
Villegas v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 709 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2013) (definition of serious medical need)
Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857 (6th Cir.) (courts reluctant to second‑guess medical judgments where plaintiff received some care)