Savage v. Gelok, 1:16-cv-00073

Background

Plaintiff Savage, a prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for medical care of a redundant (long) colon and related GI problems; defendants narrowed to Dr. Murray Young (Corizon Regional Medical Director) and Corizon, Inc.
From June 26–July 10, 2015 Savage received inpatient care at St. Luke’s including colonoscopy and diagnostic laparoscopy with lysis of adhesions; surgeons concluded colon resection was not indicated then.
After discharge Savage had repeated infirmary visits, imaging showing large fecal load/constipation but no obstruction, multiple laxative and medical treatments, wheelchair and pain meds, and several off-site specialty consultations (gastroenterology and surgical consults).
Corizon used a Utilization Management (UM) process, with Dr. Young reviewing/approving outside services; Dr. Young approved some consults, scheduled others, and cancelled a non-urgent surgical consult in March 2016 based on medical judgment (no volvulus/obstruction and prior abdominal surgeries increasing surgical risk).
Plaintiff argued Dr. Young and Corizon prioritized cost and denied/ delayed surgery and specialist care; defendants contended they continuously treated Savage and decisions reflected permissible medical judgment rather than deliberate indifference.
The court granted summary judgment for Dr. Young and Corizon, denied plaintiff’s motions (including to supplement, default judgment, and for counsel), and dismissed the case.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Savage’s condition constituted a serious medical need	Savage: redundant colon and chronic constipation/obstipation are serious and warrant surgical intervention	Defendants: condition is serious but was continuously monitored and managed medically; surgery not indicated absent obstruction/volvulus	Court: condition is objectively serious but that alone does not establish Eighth Amendment liability
Whether Dr. Young was deliberately indifferent by choosing medical over surgical treatment	Savage: Young refused/ delayed off-site specialists and surgery to save costs and told Savage surgery could wait until release	Young: decisions were based on medical judgment, imaging, specialist input, and surgical risk from prior operations	Court: No deliberate indifference — record shows continuous treatment and permissible medical judgment; disagreement over treatment is insufficient
Whether Corizon’s UM policy caused constitutional deprivation	Savage: UM prioritized cost over care, blocking necessary outside services	Corizon: UM aims to avoid unnecessary services but routinely provides surgical/ specialty care; Young’s denials were independent medical judgments	Court: No evidence UM caused deliberate indifference; policy did not prevent constitutionally required care
Whether late supplementation or additional alleged events would change outcome	Savage: new events (post-pleading) show continued deliberate indifference	Defendants/Court: granting supplement would prejudice defendants; allegations reflect disagreement in medical judgment	Court: Denied motion to supplement as unduly prejudicial and futile; claims would still fail under Eighth Amendment standard

Key Cases Cited

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (use of record to reject implausible factual account)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and materiality standard at summary judgment)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (prison official liability requires knowledge of and disregard of substantial risk)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care)
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (definitions of "serious medical need")
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (deliberate indifference subjective standard and choices between treatments)
Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (difference of medical opinion not Eighth Amendment violation)
Barnes v. Indep. Auto. Dealers, 64 F.3d 1389 (unsupported statements in briefs cannot create factual disputes)
Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234 (medical records and affidavits can defeat subjective deliberate indifference claim)