Strominger v. Hill

1

RAYMOND STROMINGER, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN R. HILL, Defendant.

No. 1:20-cv-00437-JPH-TAB

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

May 1, 2023

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT STEPHEN R. HILL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

James Patrick Hanlon, United States District Judge

Raymond Strominger, an Indiana prisoner, brings federal and state claims against Dr. Stephen R. Hill relating to treatment of his left eye. Dkt. 71.^[1]Dr. Hill, an optometrist who was previously contracted by Wexford to provide services at Pendleton Correctional Facility, has filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 118. For the reasons below, disputed material facts preclude Dr. Hill's motion for summary judgment on the federal constitutional claim, while summary judgment is appropriate on the state law claims.

I. Standard of Review

Parties in a civil dispute may move for summary judgment, which is a way of resolving a case short of a trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any of the material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; Pack v. Middlebury Comm. Sch., 990 F.3d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 2021). A "genuine dispute" exists when a reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "Material facts" are those that might affect the outcome of the suit. Id.

When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the record and draws all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Khungar v. Access Cmty. Health Network, 985 F.3d 565, 572-73 (7th Cir. 2021). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are left to the factfinder. Miller v. Gonzalez, 761 F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court is only required to consider the materials cited by the parties, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3); it is not required to "scour every inch of the record" for evidence that is potentially relevant. Grant v. Tr. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 573-74 (7th Cir. 2017).

"[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing'-that is, pointing out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at 325.

II. Factual Background

Because Dr. Hill has moved for summary judgment under Rule 56(a), the Court views and recites the evidence "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). After providing background facts, the remaining relevant facts are discussed chronologically.

A. The Parties

At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Dr. Hill was a licensed optometrist in Indiana and a health care provider duly qualified under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. Dkt. 118-2 at 1; dkt. 118-3. Dr. Hill provided optometry services at the Pendleton Correctional Facility on a part-time basis under a contract with Wexford. Dkt. 118-2 at 1-2.

Mr. Strominger was a prisoner under the supervision of the Indiana Department of Correction and incarcerated at Pendleton Correctional Facility. Dkt. 118-1 at 6.

Mr. Strominger has not filed a complaint against Dr. Hill with the Indiana Department of Insurance and no medical review panel has issued an opinion. Dkt. 118-3 at 1-2.

B. Outpatient Referral Process

Before a prisoner could receive outpatient treatment, the treatment had to be approved by an in-house provider employed by Wexford. Dkt. 118-2 at 2. As a contract optometrist, Dr. Hill could make recommendations or request that someone be referred for additional treatment or examination for optometric-related services. Id.

To make an outpatient referral, Dr. Hill would fill out a request for an outpatient referral by identifying the facility and the problem, suggest a type of specialist, and then communicate to Wexford that the outpatient request for referral had been made. Id. Dr. Hill was not responsible for approval of outpatient referrals or scheduling outpatient visits. Id.

Dr. Hill is not aware of an urgent referral process. As part of his contract with Wexford, Dr. Hill completed both in-class and 20-hours of computer-based training and never was instructed as to how to initiate an "urgent" referral. Dkt. 133-1 at 1.

C. February 2018

On February 23, 2018, Mr. Strominger woke up with rapid vision loss in his left eye. Dkt. 118-1 at 5. He could perceive only light out of that eye. Id. He sent in request for healthcare forms every week explaining his vision loss and pain until he was seen by Dr. Hill six weeks later. Dkt. 126 at ¶¶ 5, 17.

D. April 2018

On April 6, 2018, Dr. Hill saw Mr. Strominger. Dkt. 118-4 at 1-2; Dkt. 118 2 at 3. During this visit, Dr. Hill told Mr. Strominger that he had not received any of Mr. Strominger's request-for-healthcare forms. Dkt. 126 at ¶ 6.

Mr. Strominger told Dr. Hill that he was in constant severe pain. Id. at ¶ 10. The parties dispute what happened during the visit. Dr. Hill testified that he performed a dilated fundus examination (DFE) at this appointment. Dkt. 118 at 3.

A DFE is when the pupil is dilated to allow the examiner to look for abnormal changes in the back of the eye. Id. Dr. Hill noted that Mr. Strominger had light perception only in his left eye and that he was positive for diabetic retinopathy. Id. Mr. Strominger testified that Dr. Hill did not examine his left eye, dilate either eye, or check his intraocular pressures (IOP). Dkt. 126 at ¶¶ 7-9. Instead, after Mr. Strominger told Dr. Hill that he was diabetic, Dr. Hill told him that diabetic retinopathy was probably causing bleeding behind the eye and vision loss. Id. at ¶ 9. No medications were prescribed. Id. at ¶ 10.

As a result of his examination, Dr. Hill issued a referral for Mr. Strominger to be seen by an ophthalmologist for a diabetic retinopathy evaluation. Dkt. 1182 at 3; dkt. 118-4 at 3-4.

On April 9, 2018, the outpatient referral request was approved by Wexford.

Specifically, Dr. Ritz issued the approval after a call with Dr. Talbot. Dkt. 118-4 at 3-4.

On April 26, 2018, Mr. Strominger sent a request for health care directed to the "eye doctor" which Dr. Hill reviewed on May 4, 2018. Dkt. 118-4 at 5. Mr. Strominger asked whether the referral to be seen by an ophthalmologist had been approved. Id. Dr. Hill replied that he had not yet received a response and would re-issue the request soon if he received no response. Id.

E. June 2018

On June 4, 2018, Mr. Strominger saw Dr. Groves-Egan, an ophthalmologist, who found that Mr. Strominger's left eye pressure was extremely elevated. Dkt. 118-4 at 8 (noting "IOP too high" and that glaucoma and retinal specialist referral needs to be scheduled "STAT"). Mr. Strominger reported that he could barely see light. Id. at 7. He was diagnosed with neovascular glaucoma, secondary corneal edema, ocular ischemic syndrome, and vitreous hemorrhage. Id. at 9. Dr. Goves-Egan's examination notes recommended a STAT glaucoma consultation, carotid dopplers, and referral for retinal evaluation. Id. at 6. She also suggested prescriptions for latanoprost, dorzolamide/timolol, brimonidine, and Diamox. Id. These medicines were intended to reduce Mr. Strominger's high IOP in his left eye. Dkt. 118-2 at 4. In addition, Dr. Groves-Egan issued three referral orders: 1) retinal specialist referral, schedule STAT, for vitreous hemorrhage, dkt. 125-1 at 7; 2) glaucoma referral, schedule STAT, for neovascular glaucoma, id. at 8; 3) imaging order for ocular ischemic syndrome, id. at 9.

On June 8, 2018, Dr. Hill reviewed the record of Mr. Strominger's visit with Dr. Groves-Egan. Dkt. 118-2 at 3. He noted from review of the record that Dr. Groves-Egan was concerned that carotid artery problems may be causing Mr. Strominger's unilateral high intraocular eye pressure in his left eye. Id. Dr. Hill made a referral request for Mr. Strominger to get a carotid doppler. Id.; dkt. 1184 at 6. A carotid doppler measures the blood through the carotid arteries-the two main arteries which carry blood to one's head and neck. Dkt. 118-2 at 3. When blood flow through the carotid arteries is reduced or insufficient it can cause increased transient/permanent blindness in one eye. Id. at 3-4. A carotid doppler is a diagnostic test that may facilitate an understanding of the cause of, among other things, issues with vision. Id. at 4.

Dr. Hill testified that he did not prepare an outpatient referral for a glaucoma or retinal evaluation "STAT" because he believed the carotid doppler needed to be done prior to any further evaluation. Id. Dr. Hill prescribed the combination of medications recommended by Dr. Groves-Egan to reduce the high intraocular eye pressure in Mr. Strominger's left eye. Id.

On or about June 26, 2018, the carotid doppler was approved by Dr Ritz after conversation with Dr. Talbot. Dkt. 118-4 at 15-16 (noting Ophthalmologist Groves-Egan, MD is concerned that carotid problems may have caused unilateral high intraocular eye pressure). A note from the Utilization Management Nurse for Wexford states that the physician or midlevel practitioner should be notified immediately if an appointment or service...