Michael Reck v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
27 F.4th 473
| 7th Cir. | 2022Background
- Plaintiff Michael Reck, an Illinois inmate with Crohn's disease, developed a painful perianal abscess and rectal fistula in 2015 and experienced recurrent bleeding and severe pain.
- Reck submitted multiple sick-call "kites" (July 10–Nov. 2015 and Jan. 2016); medical logs show receipt of only one kite (July 26) and many of Reck’s bar-submitted kites are not logged.
- Dr. Trost (Wexford physician) treated Reck with antibiotics and anti-inflammatories, ordered a colonoscopy (performed Nov. 6, 2015), and arranged a GI consult (Dec. 24, 2015) and surgical consult (Jan. 28, 2016); Reck underwent successful surgery Feb. 9, 2016.
- Nurse Smith saw Reck several times, often without conducting full examinations, and provided wound care supplies but did not immediately escalate to surgery.
- Reck sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Dr. Trost, Nurse Smith, Health Care Unit Administrator Walls, and contractor Wexford for (a) substandard care/delayed referrals, (b) an ineffective sick-call system, and (c) chronic understaffing.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the record showed at most medical disagreement or negligence, not constitutional deliberate indifference or a Monell-level policy/custom.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Trost was deliberately indifferent by persisting in conservative treatment and delaying specialist/surgical referral | Reck: Trost continued ineffective antibiotics, failed to timely refer to GI/surgeon, prolonging severe pain | Trost: followed reasonable conservative treatment, initiated colonoscopy and GI referral once appropriate, no reckless disregard | Held: No Eighth Amendment violation — evidence shows medical disagreement, not deliberate indifference; Trost took reasonable steps and pursued referrals through review process |
| Whether Nurse Smith was deliberately indifferent by not examining or referring Reck | Reck: Nurse failed to examine or promptly escalate despite repeated bursting abscesses and severe pain | Smith: acted under Trost's treatment plan, provided wound care and supplies, not required to independently alter plan | Held: No deliberate indifference — nurse’s deference to physician and provision of supplies did not amount to reckless disregard |
| Whether Administrator Walls / Wexford operated an ineffective sick-call system causing constitutional harm | Reck: systemic failures (lost kites, daily log failures) led to delayed care and pain; Wexford/administration liable for failing to fix system | Defendants: many kites were never received or logged; Walls lacked authority to hire/fire Wexford staff; no proof of policymaker-created practice causing harm | Held: No Monell or supervisory liability — plaintiff failed to show a policy/custom by Wexford or Walls or that they had responsibility for the bar-kite transmission failures or that the practice was a widespread policymaking-level custom |
| Whether understaffing of Health Care Unit (HCU) constituted deliberate indifference | Reck: chronic understaffing and physician absences (Trost frequently absent) caused delays and denied timely care | Defendants: Walls/Trost lacked authority to hire Wexford employees; no evidence understaffing caused specific harm to Reck beyond delay that did not amount to constitutional injury | Held: No constitutional violation — no proof that understaffing was a policy-level, persistent deficiency that caused constitutional harm to Reck |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (medical malpractice is insufficient; deliberate indifference required)
- Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (persistence in ineffective treatment can show deliberate indifference)
- Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (delay causing prolonged pain may be deliberate indifference depending on severity and ease of treatment)
- Goodloe v. Sood, 947 F.3d 1026 (when a doctor knows the need to undertake a task and fails, deliberate indifference claim strengthens)
- Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (nurses may be liable if they knowingly disregard risks to inmate health)
- Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (nurse liability where independent delay in treatment is shown)
- Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650 (nurse deference to physician but independent duty discussed)
- Glisson v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 849 F.3d 372 (Monell framework for corporate prison-health defendants)
- Thomas v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 604 F.3d 293 (widespread practice of failing to review inmates' requests can support Monell liability)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy, custom, or final policymaker action)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (isolated incidents insufficient for municipal liability without a pattern)
- Palmer v. Marion Cnty., 327 F.3d 588 (series of violations required to show deliberate indifference at entity level)
- Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269 (systemic staffing/facility deficiencies can show deliberate indifference)