Prison doctor, nurse must face inmate’s lawsuit

Two medical care providers at the Miami Correctional Facility have lost their bid to end an inmate’s Eight Amendment lawsuit after a district court judge found evidence to reasonably support the inference that the providers were deliberately indifferent to his excruciating foot pain.

Judge Jon E. DeGuilio of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on Wednesday denied summary judgment to Dr. Noe Marandet and nurse LeeAnn Ivers in Jeffrey D. Perez v. Noe Marandet, et al., 3:15-cv-496. Perez, who has been incarcerated since 2006, sued the nurse and doctor after alleging they failed to reasonably accommodate his requests for relief from foot pain related to his clubfeet.

Perez was provided with canes, crutches, a wheelchair and orthopedic shoes in the years leading to his June 2014 transfer to Miami Correctional Facility, and in April 2013, he underwent surgery that left him in more pain than before. He became wheelchair-bound after the surgery and also lost his orthopedic shoes in the transfer.

Within weeks of his arrival at MCF, Perez began complaining to the nursing staff and to Marandet about his foot pain. He requested another meeting with the podiatrist who had performed his surgery, but Marandet initially failed to request the meeting or to prescribe pain medications.

The consultation request was eventually submitted after a followup meeting in August 2014, but when the request was not fulfilled, Perez filed a formal grievance. While waiting for a response to his grievance, Perez wrote to Ivers, the head of the nursing staff at the correctional facility, asking for an update.

Ivers responded by indicating his consultation request was awaiting approval, and the grievance was closed. The nurse then responded to an email from Perez’s ex-wife, telling the woman Perez would be able to see the podiatrist after paperwork was processed “down state.”

Meanwhile, Perez continued to meet with Marandet and members of the nursing staff, claiming that he complained about his foot pain at every visit. Marandet, however, said two of Perez’s visits were exclusively about unrelated medical conditions.

A member of the nursing staff eventually secured a new pair of orthopedic shoes for Perez in December 2014, six months after his arrival at MCF. During those months, he reached out to Ivers about his request to meet with a podiatrist at least five times, and she responded at least three times. One of the last times was in January 2015, when Ivers told the inmate his request was no longer being considered because his receipt of the orthopedic shoes was considered the fulfillment of the request.

Perez then filed a second grievance, which was denied as untimely.

When Perez continued to complain of foot pain, even with the orthopedic shoes, Marandet once again requested a podiatry consultation. The regional medical director, however, proposed an alternative treatment plan consisting of prescription medication to control his pain and possible referral to a long-term pain management plan. As a result, Perez received the prescription meds, but he complained to Ivers that medicine alone would not solve his problems.  

Ivers once again referred Perez to Marandet, who agreed to put in another consultation request. Perez was then transferred in March 2015 to the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, where he was approved to meet with a podiatrist and underwent two unsuccessful surgeries and received several new pain medications.

In his complaint against the Miami Correctional Facility personnel, Perez argued Ivers and Marandet were deliberately indifferent to his pain, a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The medical professionals both moved for summary judgment, but taking the facts in the light most favorable to Perez, DeGuilio said a reasonable jury could agree with the inmate’s argument.

“If Perez’s testimony is credited, a reasonable jury could infer that Dr. Marandet’s failure to respond in any meaningful way to Perez’s continued complaints of pain in late 2014 — complaints that he had consistently voiced since he first saw Dr. Marandet in June — constitutes deliberate indifference,” DeGuilio wrote.

The judge reached a similar ruling with regard to Ivers, noting that despite evidence in the record to the contrary, she claimed to have no recollection of communicating with Perez after her initial response to his grievance in August 2014.

“Again, a reasonable jury could find Nurse Ivers’ alleged inability to recall any of these communications disingenuous,” DeGuilio wrote. “When Nurse Ivers’ failure to take any action despite being aware of Perez’s suffering is considered along with her assertion … that there was no longer a need for the consultation with the podiatrist and her inability to remember any of the numerous communications she had with Perez, a reasonable jury could find that Nurse Ivers was deliberately indifferent to Perez’s pain.”