Proctor v. Sood
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12560
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Daniel Proctor, an Illinois prisoner at Hill Correctional Center (2007–2014), suffered chronic lower abdominal pain and colon spasms dating to 1999 and sought repeated care from Wexford medical staff.
- Medical providers (nurse practitioner Bloomfield, PA John, Drs. Shute and Sood) performed exams, X‑rays, ultrasound, stool studies and blood tests; results were repeatedly normal and providers treated symptomatically with antispasmodics (Bentyl, Levsin), antibiotics, fiber, stool softeners, and dietary advice.
- Proctor repeatedly requested referral for colonoscopy/endoscopy; grievances were denied by the prison healthcare administrator and reviewed by the warden and IDOC director; medical director Dr. Shicker reviewed records and deferred to treating clinicians.
- After transfer in October 2014, Proctor received a colonoscopy, CT scan, and renal ultrasound showing minimal diverticula, hernias, and a kidney lesion; treating physician at the receiving facility concluded the colon was clinically healthy.
- Proctor sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for failure to obtain definitive diagnostic testing and that Wexford had a policy of denying outside referrals; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to order colonoscopy/endoscopy amounted to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Proctor: severe, chronic pain and spasms warranted further diagnostics; denial shows deliberate indifference and possible cost‑saving policy by Wexford | Defendants: medical staff thoroughly evaluated him, treated symptoms appropriately, and further invasive testing was a medical judgment not required by the Constitution | Court: No deliberate indifference; reasonable medical judgment to treat symptomatically and tests later showed no significant colon pathology |
| Whether Wexford is liable under § 1983 for denial of referrals | Proctor: Wexford maintained a policy of denying specialist referrals to save costs | Wexford: treating clinicians followed accepted medical practice; no evidence of an unconstitutional policy | Court: No evidence of unconstitutional policy; Wexford not liable because providers acted within professional judgment |
| Whether non‑medical officials (administrator, warden, IDOC director, medical director) are liable for grievance handling | Proctor: grievance denials and failure to refer show deliberate indifference by supervisory/state officials | Defendants: non‑medical officials deferred to medical judgment and lacked authority to order specialist referrals | Court: State defendants entitled to judgment because they reasonably relied on medical staff and no underlying constitutional violation occurred |
| Whether district court erred by declining to appoint counsel for Proctor | Proctor: needed counsel to pursue his claims effectively | Defendants: no showing that counsel would change the outcome | Held: Denial proper; no indication counsel would affect result |
Key Cases Cited
- Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc., 760 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2014) (summary‑judgment facts viewed in plaintiff’s favor)
- Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard for deliberate indifference to medical needs)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (medical treatment decisions are matters of professional judgment)
- Duckworth v. Ahmad, 532 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2008) (no subjective indifference where advanced testing performed and symptoms did not suggest cancer)
- Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2006) (disagreement with treatment plan does not establish constitutional violation)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (standards for recruiting counsel in civil rights cases)