May v. Mahone
1:11-cv-07503
N.D. Ill.Feb 11, 2015Background
- Floyd May, an inmate with stage IV mantle cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, was transferred to Stateville Correctional Center after several cycles of chemotherapy and later placed on maintenance Rituximab; as of March 2012 he was in remission.
- Defendants are Stateville physicians: Dr. Sylvia Mahone (NRC medical director) and Dr. Imhotep Carter (Stateville physician). Nurse Holly Logan was named but not tied to claims.
- Mahone screened May on intake, documented his cancer history, arranged infirmary placement, and transferred chemotherapy care to UIC; Patel (UIC oncologist) treated May as outpatient and recommended maintenance therapy and consideration of stem-cell transplant.
- May alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for (1) failure to obtain/administer cancer medications, (2) failure to timely transport to hospital/appointments, (3) failure to seek authorization for stem-cell transplant, (4) failure to follow oncologist instructions for neutropenic fever, and (5) retaliation; he also asserted ADA/Rehab Act and state malpractice claims.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found many of May’s factual assertions lacked admissible personal-knowledge support and that the undisputed record showed treatment within the range of acceptable medical judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to obtain/administer cancer medications | May: Mahone/Carter failed to acquire or give prescribed meds and rejected meds from hospital | Defs: medical staff ordered/handled meds; record disputes and lack of proof of deliberate intent | Court: No genuine dispute of deliberate indifference; failures, if any, were inadvertent and insufficient for Eighth Amendment; dismissed |
| Failure to provide timely hospital/chemo transport | May: Mahone/Carter delayed or refused transports (one-day delay; missed Oct. 3 appointment) | Defs: Mahone arranged treatment; records do not show deliberate refusal by Carter; May attended subsequent chemo | Court: Delay was de minimis/inadvertent; no evidence of deliberate indifference; dismissed |
| Failure to seek/authorize stem-cell transplant | May: Defs knew of Patel’s recommendation but did not seek authorization | Defs: No evidence they were contacted; Patel testified maintenance Rituximab was reasonable; bone-marrow referral arranged | Court: Treatment chosen was within acceptable medical range; no deliberate indifference in denying transplant; dismissed |
| Failure to follow oncologist instructions for fever /neutropenia | May: Defs failed to rush him to ER for neutropenic fever >103°F | Defs: No evidence Carter knew of fever until Oct. 3; record does not show earlier contact or refusal | Court: May failed to show defendants were aware and deliberately indifferent; dismissed |
| Retaliation; ADA/Rehab Act; state malpractice | May: adverse medical actions were retaliatory; statutory/medical-malpractice claims | Defs: lack of admissible evidence and required expert support for malpractice; no specific statutory claim showing | Court: Unsupported speculation and missing expert proof; retaliation and statutory/malpractice claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (summary-judgment facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant only where genuine dispute exists)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact standard at summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (defendant free from liability if they reasonably responded to a known risk)
- Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. standard for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586 (prison doctor’s treatment choice must be an extreme departure from acceptable practice to show deliberate indifference)
- Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., 772 F.3d 457 (affidavits must be based on personal knowledge; speculation inadmissible)
- McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636 (an unexplained refusal to authorize treatment can support deliberate-indifference claim)