Richard Smego v. Jacqueline Mitchell
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14619
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Richard Smego, a civil detainee at Rushville, sued Dr. Jacqueline Mitchell, a dental hygienist, and two other doctors for deliberate indifference to his dental pain under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Mitchell diagnosed twelve cavities in 2005 and promised prompt treatment in 2006 but performed no substantial work for over a year.
- Smego's cavities worsened; he alleges repeated delays and refusals to treat, with scheduling impeded by a dental office staff member’s remark about him being a “pest.”
- From 2007 to mid-2008, Smego received only limited, inconsistent care, including extraction of tooth #2 and temporary fillings on other teeth, while pain persisted.
- A district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, prompting this appeal challenging deliberate indifference by Mitchell, Lawshea, Lochard, and Bednarz.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Mitchell knowingly disregarded a serious dental need. | Smego alleges Mitchell ignored persistent pain and delayed treatment despite knowledge. | Mitchell asserts no deliberate indifference; delays were justified or were negligent, not deliberate. | Reversed as to Mitchell; jury could find deliberate indifference. |
| Whether Lawshea's conduct constitutes deliberate indifference. | Lawshea warned Smego against being a “pest,” hindering access to treatment. | Lawshea's role was limited to scheduling and supplies; no deliberate indifference shown. | Remanded; evidence supports potential deliberate indifference by Lawshea. |
| Whether Dr. Lochard's involvement constitutes deliberate indifference. | Lochard knew of pain and lack of treatment but did not act to secure care. | Lochard deferred to Mitchell; no independent liability shown. | Remanded; reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference by Lochard. |
| Whether Dr. Bednarz is liable for deliberate indifference. | Bednarz heard of issues and sought assurances of treatment, allegedly failing to secure care. | Bednarz relied on Mitchell; no evidence of knowing false representations. | Affirmed as to Bednarz; no deliberate indifference shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (requires deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- King v. Kramer, 680 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2012) (civil detainee due-process parallel to Eighth Amendment standard)
- Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2011) (deliberate indifference standard for medical care in detention)
- McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2010) (unmet medical needs and appropriate treatment patterns)
- Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2010) (non-physician defendants can be liable for delaying care)