Nelson v. Choi
4:15-cv-13101
E.D. Mich.May 6, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Patricia Nelson, an inmate at Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility, sued Regional Dental Director Dr. Jong Choi under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of specialty treatment for temporomandibular joint disorder (TMJ).
- Nelson alleges WHV dental staff requested specialist referrals in 2012 (denied twice) and 2014 (approved), and that Choi later refused further treatment in 2015 unless she paid herself.
- Choi is the MDOC Southern Region Dental Director, works off-site, does not provide direct patient care, and declares he had no personal contact with Nelson regarding her care.
- Choi moved for summary judgment arguing lack of personal involvement (no § 1983 liability) and that Nelson cannot show an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.
- Nelson responded that Choi made the ultimate decisions denying specialist referrals and thus was personally involved and deliberately indifferent to her serious medical need.
- Magistrate Judge David R. Grand recommends denying Choi’s motion, finding disputed material facts about Choi’s involvement and mental state preclude summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal involvement for § 1983 liability | Choi, as regional dental director, made/approved denials of specialist referrals; thus personally involved | Choi had no personal contact, provided no direct care, so no personal involvement | Denied summary judgment — factual dispute exists; allegations sufficient at this stage |
| Objective prong of Eighth Amendment (serious medical need) | TMJ causes substantial pain; qualifies as a serious medical need | Refutes that denial created objectively serious harm (conclusory) | Denied — record does not show TMJ is not a serious medical need; issue remains factual |
| Subjective prong of Eighth Amendment (deliberate indifference) | Denial of referrals despite awareness of pain shows deliberate indifference | No evidence Choi knew of or recklessly disregarded a substantial risk; only asserts lack of personal involvement | Denied — material factual dispute about Choi’s knowledge and state of mind precludes summary judgment |
| Sufficiency of movant's evidence on summary judgment burden | Nelson’s allegations and responses raise factual disputes | Choi’s affidavit statements are narrow and not dispositive | Denied — Choi failed to negate plaintiff’s claims as a matter of law at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (supervisory liability cannot be premised on respondeat superior alone)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (subjective deliberate-indifference standard requires knowledge of a substantial risk)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (personal involvement required for § 1983 liability)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)