Sperry v. Corizon Health
21-3008
| 10th Cir. | Feb 23, 2022Background
- In 2014 Jeffrey Sperry, a Kansas prison inmate, was diagnosed with Hepatitis C shortly after new antiviral treatments became available; he requested the new treatment but Corizon Health (the prison health contractor) declined.
- Sperry sued Kansas prison officials, Corizon Health, and two Corizon nurses asserting Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference, medical malpractice, negligence, civil conspiracy, outrage, breach of fiduciary duty, and battery claims.
- The district court dismissed some claims, entered judgment on pleadings for others, and granted summary judgment on remaining malpractice/negligence claims; Sperry appealed.
- Sperry also challenged several pretrial rulings: entry of a scheduling order, denial of leave to amend, denial of appointed counsel, and denial of a request to convene a Kansas medical screening panel.
- Sperry eventually received Hepatitis C treatment (Epclusa), but alleged the defendants delayed treatment and caused harm; the district court found no constitutional violation and granted summary judgment because Sperry failed to present required expert evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over nonfinal rulings | Notice of appeal designates final judgment so earlier orders are reviewable | Appellant failed to designate specific nonfinal orders | Court: final judgment merges earlier orders; appellate jurisdiction proper |
| Entry of scheduling order in a prisoner case | Scheduling order was improper because D. Kan. exempts prisoner cases | District court has discretion to enter scheduling orders and apply Rule 16 as needed | Magistrate acted within discretion; scheduling order valid |
| Denial of leave to amend to add parties | Delay was justified by awaiting state investigative report and to conduct discovery | Plaintiff delayed unreasonably; unexplained delay supports denial | Denial not an abuse of discretion; plaintiff failed to raise discovery justification below |
| Denial of request to appoint counsel | Case complexity and plaintiff's indigence warranted requesting counsel | Courts may only request (not appoint) counsel; factors didn’t support request | No abuse of discretion; magistrate reasonably weighed merits, complexity, and plaintiff’s ability |
| Denial of medical screening panel under Kan. law | Panel was needed and initial denial was without prejudice; timely as to service filing date | Plaintiff missed the 60-day service-based deadline; needed to refile as allowed | Denial within discretion: panel request was untimely as to Corizon and plaintiff failed to refile for nurses |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (prison officials and nurses) | Officials and nurses delayed/failed to provide proper Hep C treatment | Grievance denials do not show personal participation; plaintiff failed to allege substantial harm from delay | Officials: dismissed (no personal participation from grievance handling). Nurses and Corizon: dismissed for failure to allege substantial harm and no employee constitutional violation |
| Medical malpractice/negligence (summary judgment) | Expert testimony unnecessary or could be supplied by defense witnesses or via medical panel | Standard of care and causation require expert proof; plaintiff lacked expert evidence and delayed panel request | Summary judgment proper: plaintiff failed to produce expert evidence and could not rely on late panel request |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez v. Davis, 882 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2018) (context re: new Hepatitis C treatments)
- McBride v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 281 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2002) (nonfinal orders merge into final judgment for appeal)
- Castanon v. Cathey, 976 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2020) (abuse-of-discretion review for denial of leave to amend)
- Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390 (10th Cir. 2016) (standard for requesting counsel under § 1915)
- Requena v. Roberts, 893 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2018) (denial of grievance insufficient for § 1983 personal participation)
- Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2009) (grievance denial alone does not establish personal participation under § 1983)
- Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745 (10th Cir. 2005) (substantial harm requirement for delay in medical treatment under Eighth Amendment)
- Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, 159 F.3d 504 (10th Cir. 1998) (conclusory allegations insufficient for civil conspiracy)
- Perkins v. Susan B. Allen Mem’l Hosp., 146 P.3d 1102 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006) (expert testimony ordinarily required in medical malpractice)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)