Scott Konitzer a/k/a Donna Dawn Konitzer v. Dr. Prapti P. Kuber, et al.

Konitzer · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin · March 27, 2026 · No. 23-cv-1500

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an incarcerated plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs based on the delayed provision of cough medication. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s withdrawn state-law negligence claim and concluded that the defendants’ treatment decisions reflected professional medical judgment rather than deliberate indifference.

Holdings

  1. The defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Konitzer's serious medical needs. Their decision to initially treat her cough with Mucinex and permit a productive cough, and to delay prescribing Tessalon, was based on professional medical judgment and did not constitute a substantial departure from accepted professional practice.
  2. An alleged failure to follow a departmental or institutional regulation does not, by itself, establish a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  3. The state-law negligence claim was dismissed after Konitzer withdrew it.
  4. Summary judgment was appropriate because no reasonable factfinder could conclude from the record that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference or that the alleged failure to provide cough suppressant caused a constitutionally cognizable injury.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment to Konitzer's serious medical needs by delaying or failing to provide the cough suppressant Tessalon.
  2. Whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim based on their exercise of professional medical judgment and Konitzer's failure to show avoidable injury caused by the alleged delay.
  3. Whether the withdrawn state-law negligence claim should be dismissed.
  4. Whether the court needed to reach the defendants' qualified-immunity defense after granting summary judgment on the merits.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (16)

  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)(followed)
  • Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986)(followed)
  • Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)(followed)
  • Gunville v. Walker, 583 F.3d 979, 985 (7th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Durkin v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 410, 414 (7th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Turner v. J.V.D.B. & Assoc., Inc., 330 F.3d 991, 994 (7th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • Hunter v. Mueske, 73 F.4th 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2023)(followed)
  • Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 864 (7th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 728-29 (7th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Zaya v. Sood, 836 F.3d 800, 805 (7th Cir. 2016)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…