PADRO v. SHAKIR
3:15-cv-07096
| D.N.J. | Aug 20, 2021Background
- Frank Padro, a state prisoner, underwent arthroscopic right knee surgery on December 3, 2014, performed by Dr. Ahmar Shakir for a torn meniscus and advanced degenerative arthritis.
- Mid-December Padro developed swelling and pain; prison clinicians and Dr. Shakir aspirated fluid, gave oral antibiotics (Bactrim/Cipro) and monitored him; no fever recorded.
- On January 2, 2015 Dr. Scott Miller examined Padro, found no clinical signs of a septic joint, and administered a cortisone injection; Padro later began physical therapy with Anne Peregmon in late January.
- On February 26, 2015 Dr. Shakir aspirated murky fluid and transported Padro to the hospital; on February 27 Dr. Miller performed surgery, cultures grew MSSA, and Padro received IV antibiotics via PICC line and recovered from the infection.
- Padro sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for delayed/missed diagnosis and treatment, and asserted a state-law intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim against Peregmon.
- The court considered competing expert reports finding (1) no deviation from the standard of care during surgery or follow-up, (2) appropriate treatment when infection was suspected, and (3) uncertainty when the infection actually began; the court granted summary judgment for Defendants on the Eighth Amendment claims and granted Peregmon summary judgment on the IIED claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference to serious medical need (post‑op knee infection) | Padro: treating clinicians missed/misdiagnosed a postoperative knee infection, delaying definitive treatment and worsening arthritis | Defendants: provided repeated evaluations and appropriate treatment; signs were consistent with arthritis/surgery; experts say no deviation from standard of care and infection likely developed shortly before Feb 26 | Court: Summary judgment for Shakir, Miller, Peregmon — record shows treatment and monitoring, not deliberate indifference; at most medical negligence |
| IIED claim against Peregmon (state law) | Padro: painful therapy and dismissal of his infection complaints caused severe emotional distress | Peregmon: she provided prescribed PT, lacked authority to diagnose, found no objective signs of infection, and conduct was not outrageous | Court: Summary judgment for Peregmon — conduct not extreme/outrageous; IIED not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to nonmovant; no weighing credibility)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (no genuine issue where record could not lead a rational trier of fact)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference requires defendant to know of and disregard excessive risk)
- Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575 (Eighth Amendment medical claim elements)
- Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 (serious medical need and refusal to provide care standards)
- Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192 (medical malpractice or disagreement with treatment insufficient for § 1983)
- White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103 (prisoner’s disagreement with treatment does not establish deliberate indifference)
- Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247 (definition of genuine dispute of material fact)