Bredbenner v. Malloy

Citations: 30 F. Supp. 3d 277; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37969; 2014 WL 1232508Docket: Civ. No. 11-739-SLR

Court: District Court, D. Delaware; March 24, 2014; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff Donald Bredbenner, a former inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center (VCC) in Delaware, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights due to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and has granted Bredbenner leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. The court is currently addressing unopposed motions for summary judgment from the defendants.

The claims were allowed to proceed against Sgt. Doane and medical staff members Robert Malloy, Iho-ma Chuks, and Correct Care Solutions, while claims against other defendants were dismissed. The incident in question occurred on December 22, 2010, when Bredbenner injured his arm during a basketball game. After initial examination by Doane, medical staff advised him to submit a sick call slip. Later that evening, another officer noticed Bredbenner's swollen wrist and arranged for medical attention. Nurse Robert Davenport contacted Dr. Rodgers, who ordered treatment including an ice pack, pain medication, a support sling, and an x-ray.

Despite a follow-up with medical staff the next morning, Bredbenner was not issued a pass for medical attention due to his name not appearing on the medical list. An x-ray was conducted on December 24, 2010, revealing an acute fracture. On December 28, nurse practitioner Chuks reviewed the x-ray results and recommended an urgent orthopedic consultation. Dr. DuShuttle examined Bredbenner on January 13, 2011, diagnosing a Colles fracture and providing treatment instructions, including a thumb splint and physical therapy. Subsequent visits indicated improvement, with ongoing therapy scheduled for Bredbenner's recovery.

On March 2, 2011, Dr. DuShuttle noted mild improvement in the plaintiff’s wrist condition, which he indicated would likely result in permanent issues due to an intraarticular fracture. He warned of potential arthritis and the future need for surgery, emphasizing the importance of range of motion exercises. During a follow-up on April 7, 2011, he discussed surgical options, specifically ulna shortening and triangular fibro-cartilage complex resection. Surgery was conducted on June 29, 2011, and the plaintiff continued follow-ups until January 2012.

Dr. DuShuttle did not offer any opinions about the adequacy of medical care the plaintiff received before their first meeting or whether the three-week delay in seeking treatment impacted the severity or treatment of the injury. 

Regarding the standard of review for summary judgment, the court will grant it if there are no genuine disputes over material facts, placing the burden on the moving party to demonstrate this. If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must provide specific facts indicating a genuine issue for trial. The court will assess the facts favorably for the nonmoving party but requires sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in their favor. If the nonmoving party fails to show sufficient evidence on a key element of their case, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Doane seeks summary judgment, arguing a lack of evidence for deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's medical needs and asserting qualified immunity. Medical defendants also seek summary judgment, contending the plaintiff's claims cannot succeed without expert testimony.

Plaintiff claims that Doane violated his constitutional rights by failing to properly address his wrist injury and preventing him from seeing medical personnel. The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to provide adequate medical care, necessitating an inmate to demonstrate (i) a serious medical need and (ii) deliberate indifference by officials. Deliberate indifference occurs when an official is aware of a substantial risk of serious harm and fails to act. It can manifest through intentional denial or delay of medical care. However, inmates cannot dictate their medical treatment as long as the care provided is reasonable. Claims against medical staff under § 1983 are not viable if the inmate receives ongoing care but believes further treatment or diagnostics should have occurred. Mere disagreements over medical treatment do not constitute constitutional violations.

Doane contends that the evidence does not support claims of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff alleges two instances of constitutional violations: (1) following the initial injury, and (2) on December 23, 2010, when Doane did not send him to medical. Evidence shows that Doane examined the wrist and saw no abnormalities, reported the injury to medical staff, and instructed the plaintiff to submit a sick call slip. Since Doane is not a medical provider and saw no immediate risk, he could not be considered deliberately indifferent. On December 23, 2010, plaintiff's name was not on the medical list, and he had received prior treatment, meaning Doane was not authorized to grant a medical pass.

Regarding the medical defendants, they argue that without expert testimony, the plaintiff cannot prove his claims against them. Plaintiff was injured on December 22, 2010, and first seen by Dr. DuShuttle on January 13, 2011. The court previously determined that once treatment began with Dr. DuShuttle, the care was appropriate. The critical question is whether the medical defendants were deliberately indifferent during the three-week period between the injury and the start of treatment.

Plaintiff received initial medical treatment from a nurse immediately after his injury, followed by an X-ray two days later and a consultation with a physician named Chuks six days post-injury. Chuks referred the plaintiff for an orthopedic consultation, which occurred on January 13, 2011. Although the plaintiff intended to call Dr. DuShuttle as a witness to assert that medical defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs due to treatment delays, Dr. DuShuttle lacked any expert opinion regarding the adequacy of care provided before his first consultation with the plaintiff or the impact of the three-week delay on treatment or injury severity. The record indicates that the plaintiff received prompt treatment after his injury and was referred to a specialist, but it does not clarify the reason for any subsequent delay in seeing Dr. DuShuttle. The court concluded there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate deliberate indifference by the defendants, ruling that no reasonable jury could find a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and ordered the case closed. The court also noted that there was no need to address qualified immunity since there was no constitutional rights violation.