Meiko Buchanan v. Steven Bowman, Dr. Percy Myers, Alisa Dearmond, Jilian Crane, and Anthony Wills

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois addresses defendants’ motions for summary judgment in Meiko Buchanan’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning alleged deliberate indifference to his left-ear pain and hearing loss. The court discusses evidentiary objections and concludes that the defendants’ treatment decisions did not satisfy the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard. The motions for summary judgment are granted.

Holdings

1. Viewing the evidence in Buchanan's favor, his persistent ear pain and hearing loss could constitute an objectively serious medical condition, so the Wexford defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on that ground.
2. An Eighth Amendment medical-care claim requires proof of an objectively serious medical condition and that the defendant subjectively knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the inmate's health; negligence, malpractice, or a good-faith professional treatment judgment is insufficient.
3. Dr. Myers was entitled to summary judgment because the record showed that he examined Buchanan, diagnosed and treated suspected otitis with different medications, and made treatment decisions based on professional judgment; no reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference.
4. Crane and Dearmond were entitled to summary judgment because Buchanan was referred to an audiologist within the applicable thirty-day period after failing the on-site hearing test, Crane later resubmitted the referral, and the scheduling delay was outside their control.
5. Buchanan's claims that Crane and Dearmond were deliberately indifferent based on treatment decisions made after the complaint was filed were unexhausted and could not be considered in this action.
6. Bowman was entitled to summary judgment because Buchanan presented no evidence that Bowman personally participated in or knew of and disregarded Buchanan's alleged deprivation, and § 1983 does not impose respondeat superior or general supervisory liability.
7. The official-capacity claim against Wills was dismissed because Buchanan was not entitled to injunctive relief.
8. The court considered the disclosed medical providers' expert opinions, disregarded improper legal argument presented as factual statements, considered the grievances and sick-call slips for summary-judgment purposes, and declined to impose sanctions for the Local Rule 56.1 violation because Buchanan was able to respond.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Buchanan presented sufficient evidence that his ear pain and hearing loss constituted an objectively serious medical condition for purposes of an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.
2. Whether Dr. Percy Myers was deliberately indifferent by allegedly providing ineffective treatment, failing to flush Buchanan's ear, failing to refer him to a specialist, or allowing his transfer without completed treatment.
3. Whether nurse practitioners Jilian Crane and Alisa Dearmond were deliberately indifferent by failing to mark or submit an urgent referral to an outside audiologist.
4. Whether Buchanan's claims concerning treatment decisions made after the filing of his complaint were exhausted under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
5. Whether Steven Bowman had sufficient personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation to support § 1983 liability and whether the official-capacity claim against Anthony Wills could support injunctive relief.
6. Whether the parties' evidentiary and Local Rule 56.1 objections required exclusion of summary-judgment materials.

Disposition

other