Wilson v. Adams
901 F.3d 816
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Donald Wilson, incarcerated in Wisconsin since 2009, reported cognitive problems (dementia/Alzheimer’s) and persistent neck/throat pain with swallowing and breathing difficulties.
- Mental-health evaluation: Dr. Adams referred Wilson to a psychiatrist and to the Wisconsin Resource Center; after eight months of testing/observation (including a CT scan), specialists found no evidence of dementia and suspected feigned symptoms.
- Physical complaints: Dr. Murphy coordinated repeated testing and referrals (endocrinology, ENT, pulmonology, neurosurgery, speech pathology, dental care) and provided pain management, antibiotics, a soft diet, nutritional supplements, a wheelchair, and eventual specialist follow-ups.
- Spinal-fusion hardware was identified as likely causing symptoms; a surgeon and later Dr. Paul (after a court-ordered second opinion) concluded surgery was not advisable and recommended conservative treatment.
- Procedural posture: Wilson sued under § 1983 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference), the ADA/Rehab Act (not pursued on appeal), and state-law negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Adams was deliberately indifferent to Wilson's alleged dementia/Alzheimer’s | Adams failed to properly diagnose/treat Wilson’s cognitive disorder | Adams investigated, referred to specialists, and relied on negative specialist findings | No deliberate indifference; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether Dr. Murphy was deliberately indifferent to Wilson's physical ailments (neck/throat pain, swallowing, breathing) | Murphy provided inadequate pain management, ignored specialist recommendations, and delayed appointments | Murphy coordinated extensive specialist care, prescribed reasonable symptom treatment, and delays were explainable/resource-based | No deliberate indifference; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether delay in appointments or continued use of naproxen amounted to Eighth Amendment violation | Delays and continued same medication exacerbated pain/unnecessarily prolonged suffering | Delays were common and justified by limited resources; no evidence treatment worsened condition; no obvious superior available treatment withheld | Delay/medication choices insufficient to create a triable § 1983 claim |
| Whether state-law medical negligence could be proven without expert testimony | Expert testimony not required; Dr. Paul’s report suffices | Wisconsin law requires expert proof of standard of care for medical malpractice; no expert offered | Expert testimony required; summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to prisoners’ serious medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness of substantial risk)
- Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016) (standards for deliberate indifference and medical care review)
- Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 839 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2016) (deliberate indifference and Eighth Amendment analysis)
- Zaya v. Sood, 836 F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment review and inferences for nonmoving party)
- Christianson v. Downs, 90 Wis.2d 332 (Wis. 1979) (expert testimony required to establish medical standard of care, absent common-knowledge exception)