# Lollis v. Hogan

> District Court, C.D. Illinois · June 17, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10137599

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** June 17, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10137599

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EMANUEL LOLLIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 21-cv-4212
)
HEATHER HOGAN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Emanuel Lollis, proceeding pro se and detained in the Rushville Treatment and
Detention Facility (“Rushville”), alleges that Defendants Heather Hogan, Michelle Shults, Twila
Batterton, Sara Watson, Lucinda McKenna, Lisa Brown, and Mindy Griffin violated his
Fourteenth Amendment rights when they refused to respond when he reported dizziness,
headaches, and shortness of breath; refused to monitor his blood pressure; and did not notify a
doctor when his blood pressure numbers were high from August 2021 through January 2022.
(Docs. 8 and 10).
This matter is now before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 7.1(D) (Doc. 60); Plaintiff’s Response (Doc.
65); and Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 66). For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
MATERIAL FACTS
Parties
Plaintiff Emanuel Lollis is a detainee at Rushville. Defendant Heather Hogan is a registered
nurse and served as the Director of Nursing at Rushville. During the relevant time period,
Defendants Lisa Brown, Michelle Shults, Mindy Griffin, and Lucinda McKenna were employed
as licensed practical nurses (“LPN”) at Rushville. Defendants Twila Batterton and Sara Watson
were employed as registered nurses (“RN”).
Plaintiff’s Medical Care
Prior to entering Rushville on March 29, 2017, Plaintiff had cholesterol and back problems
but had not been diagnosed with high blood pressure or hypertension. Plaintiff first received a high

blood pressure or hypertension prescription approximately two years before his July 2023
deposition. Plaintiff has never experienced a stroke, heart attack, or cardiac arrest.
Plaintiff does not have a device to check his blood pressure, but he claims to know when it
is high. (Doc. 60-1 at 22:22-23:1). Plaintiff does not know what his blood pressure numbers are
unless he goes to the Health Care Unit (“HCU”) and has a monitor or cuff placed on him. Id. at
52:15-19. To accurately determine his blood pressure, Plaintiff contacted Rushville staff to check
it for him. Id. at 23:18-22. Medical staff at Rushville checked Plaintiff’s blood pressure manually
and by using a machine and blood pressure cuff. Id. at 23:23-24:2. Plaintiff claims he suffered
damage to a heart valve because Defendants did not check his blood pressure for a while. Id. at

98:19-99:2.
On July 10, 2019, an LPN noted Plaintiff’s complaints of chest pain near his shoulder and
shortness of breath, but the LPN observed no signs or symptoms of shortness of breath. Plaintiff’s
blood pressure was 120/79.
On August 9, 2019, Defendant Watson noted Plaintiff complained of chest pain, but his
vital signs were within normal limits. Defendant Watson also noted Plaintiff received an
electrocardiogram (“EKG”), but it showed no changes from his previous EKG. On August 18,
2019, Plaintiff complained of increased blood pressure, a headache, and chest pain. Plaintiff’s
blood pressure was 162/100; his heart sounded within normal limits; an EKG was performed; and
no acute distress was noted. A doctor prescribed Plaintiff 0.1mg of Clonidine, a medication to
lower blood pressure, to be taken by mouth daily.
On September 1, 2020, an LPN noted Plaintiff requested a blood pressure check due to
“pressure at top of eyes.” (Doc. 60-3 at p. 73). Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 122/84.
On August 15, 2021, an LPN noted Plaintiff reported, “I was seeing spots,” but “[t]hey

went away.” Id. at p. 68. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 137/91. On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff
complained of “chest pain,” and his blood pressure was 128/82.
Plaintiff alleges a nurse refused to take his blood pressure when he reported that he was
dizzy on August 21, 2021, and September 2, 2021. Plaintiff’s medical records do not show he was
seen by a health care provider on either August 21, 2021, or September 2, 2021.
On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff went to the HCU complaining of chest pain; an EKG was
obtained; and his blood pressure was 128/83. On September 23, 2021, an LPN noted that Plaintiff
requested a blood pressure check, and his blood pressure was 154/98. The LPN also noted Plaintiff
asked to see a doctor to discuss blood pressure and family history of heart disease.

On September 24, 2021, Plaintiff went to the HCU complaining of chest pain and dizziness.
His blood pressure was 142/91. Plaintiff informed the LPN his father died of a myocardial
infarction (“MI”) in his fifties. Plaintiff was placed on the doctor’s line to discuss further testing
and blood pressure medications. When Plaintiff left the HCU, he was in no distress. Three hours
after seeing the LPN, Plaintiff requested a blood pressure check during med line, and his blood
pressure was 130/94.
On September 26, 2021, an LPN noted Plaintiff complained of a headache, chest pain, and
dizziness. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 153/96, and he was in no apparent distress. The LPN
noted a plan to check Plaintiff’s blood pressure daily for five days.
On September 27, 28, 29, 30, and October 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood
pressure was 138/89, 153/82, 180/92, 132/52, 140/90, 122/78, 118/88, 112/92, 132/96, 158/86,
and 120/90, respectively.
On September 30, 2021, a doctor prescribed Plaintiff 20mg daily of Lisinopril, a
medication used to treat hypertension. The doctor ordered daily blood pressure and pulse checks

for one week.
Plaintiff alleges nurses ignored his symptoms and refused to take his blood pressure on
October 7, 2021; however, Plaintiff’s medical records show that on October 7, 2021, his blood
pressure was 120/90 but 140/92 after it was re-checked. (Doc. 60-2 at p. 10).
Plaintiff alleges his blood pressure was elevated on October 9, 17, 18, and 19, 2021. A
doctor ordered nurses to regularly check Plaintiff’s blood pressure and notify him if it was elevated.
On October 10, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 152/90 but 146/98 when re-checked.
On October 11 and 12, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 144/82 and 150/88, respectively.
On October 17, 2021, an LPN noted Plaintiff complained of a headache and feeling his

heartbeat behind his eyes. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 161/105 after sitting for ten minutes. The
LPN called a doctor and received an order for 0.1mg of Clonidine. The doctor requested that
Plaintiff’s blood pressure be checked again in thirty minutes. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 156/99
when it was rechecked. Plaintiff expressed concern about his high blood pressure and was added
to the doctor’s line. Approximately four hours later, an RN checked his blood pressure and noted
it was 156/88.
On October 18, 2021, an RN noted Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 146/96. On October 19,
2021, a doctor noted Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 139/91, and Plaintiff reported a history of heart
disease in his family. A doctor observed Plaintiff’s blood pressure was mildly high, assessed blood
pressure and cardiac risk, planned an EKG at Plaintiff’s normal bedtime and blood pressure checks
twice daily for a month, added Plaintiff to the hypertension clinic, and prescribed Plaintiff 5mg
daily of Norvasc for six months to treat high blood pressure.
On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 115/80. On October 21, 2021, Plaintiff
refused a blood pressure check. On October 22, 23, and 24, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was

145/90, 148/82, and 128/89, respectively.
Plaintiff alleges he reported shooting pains on his left side on October 25, 2021. An RN
noted Plaintiff complained of chest pain, and his blood pressure was 169/112. The Medical
Director, Collegial Review, and Defendant Hogan were notified. Plaintiff was sent to Sarah D.
Culbertson Memorial Hospital the same day. At the hospital, Plaintiff informed the doctor he had
chest pain, but the doctor noted Plaintiff was not acting as if he was in pain. Plaintiff’s blood
pressure was 161/99; he was in no distress; his pulse oximeter reading was within a normal range;
his heart rate and rhythm were normal; and he did not have acute cardiopulmonary disease. As a
result, Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital. That evening, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was

145/93.
On October 26, 2021, a doctor prescribed Plaintiff 25mg of Metoprolol, a medication for
high blood pressure, daily for six months. On October 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30, 2021, Plaintiff’s
blood pressure was 150/93, 132/81, 144/100, 138/83, and 166/90, respectively.
Plaintiff alleges a nurse refused to see him despite his reported symptoms on November 9,
2021.
Every morning from November 1 through November 18, 2021, Plaintiff refused the 25mg
of Metoprolol the doctor prescribed. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was checked, with readings of
132/84, 152/92, 142/89, 142/97, 110/75, 126/80, 147/86, 146/82, 139/91, 160/80, 171/90, 138/93,
123/85, 141/82, 110/83/ 135/96, 134/99, and 148/80, respectively.
On November 16, 2023, Defendant Brown noted Plaintiff refused to come for sick call.
Plaintiff alleges he passed out on November 19, 2021. He was found lying face down on
the floor trying to get up when an RN arrived. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 173/124 and then

186/102 when taken manually. Plaintiff denied having chest pain, stated he felt dizzy, and was
able to sit up on his own and ambulate back to his room for standby assistance. When asked about
his daily medications, Plaintiff told the RN, “I have been taking my night ones but unless they
wake me up in the morning[,] I have not been taking them.” (Doc. 60-3 at p. 55). A doctor changed
Plaintiff’s daily dose of Metoprolol from morning to night and prescribed 0.2mg Clonidine. Later
that day, Plaintiff blood pressure was 165/92, and the RN administered the second dose of
Clonidine. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 146/93 in the evening.
On November 20, 2021, Plaintiff was prescribed Clonidine 0.1mg by mouth. That evening,
Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 168/120. On November 21, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was

162/88 in the morning and 157/95 in the evening. Plaintiff complained of a headache and dizziness
and was given Tylenol. Plaintiff requested that his blood pressure be taken, and it was 158/91.
Plaintiff stated he had nose bleeds for the past two days and was told to sign up for nurse sick call.
Plaintiff alleges he passed out on November 22, 2021, a doctor was notified, and
medication was administered. Shortly after midnight, Plaintiff reported blurred vision, dizziness,
pressure on the left side of his head, and nausea. The nurse checked Plaintiff’s vital signs, including
his blood pressure of 173/82, and noted Plaintiff had no shortness of breath or chest pain. A doctor
was notified of his condition and ordered Plaintiff to be placed on the doctor line that day.
At 9:00 a.m. on November 22, 2021, the doctor saw Plaintiff for a follow-up visit for his
blood pressure and a medication adjustment. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 139/86; he was alert
and oriented; and he had no acute distress. The doctor discontinued Plaintiff’s 25mg Metoprolol
prescription, increasing it to 50mg extended release to be taken by mouth at bedtime for ninety
days. That evening, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 179/90.

At 2:30 a.m. on November 23, 2021, Plaintiff came to the HCU to request a blood pressure
check. Plaintiff complained of a headache, dizziness, and blurred vision, but had no shortness of
breath or chest pain. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 182/94.
Plaintiff saw the doctor at 7:50 a.m. on November 23, 2021. His blood pressure was 146/90.
Plaintiff was alert and oriented, had no acute distress, and his EKG was normal. Plaintiff’s blood
pressure was checked twice that evening and was 151/73 and 136/96, respectively.
Shortly after midnight on November 24, 2021, Plaintiff complained of a headache,
dizziness, nose bleeds, blurred vision, tiredness, a metallic taste in his mouth, and numbness on
the right side of his mouth. Plaintiff was alert and oriented, had no shortness of breath or chest

pain, and his blood pressure was 172/100. The nurse’s treatment plan included an EKG and a
referral to the Medical Director.
At 8:00 a.m. on November 24, 2021, a doctor ordered an EKG due to Plaintiff’s increased
blood pressure. At 8:40 a.m., the doctor was notified of Plaintiff’s EKG, and Plaintiff was referred
for a cardiac consultation. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was checked twice that evening and was
133/89 and then was 149/93 two hours later.
In the evening on November 25, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was checked twice and
was 132/86 and then was 179/97 about ninety minutes later. On November 26, 27, and 28, 2021,
Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 149/98, 134/90, and 164/101, respectively.
On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff saw the doctor for a follow-up examination. Plaintiff was
alert and oriented, had no acute distress, and his blood pressure was 136/105, then 130/105, and
finally 131/93 during the visit. Plaintiff complained of back pain and expressed concern about
myocardial infarction due to his family history. The doctor assessed Plaintiff as having increased
blood pressure secondary to low back pain. The doctor referred Plaintiff to a cardiologist,

prescribed Tramadol 50mg and Metoprolol 50mg extended release twice daily, and checked his
blood pressure twice a day for thirty days. Plaintiff’s cardiology referral was approved on
November 30, 2021.
From December 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was
checked at least twice daily, with two exceptions. On December 1 and 2, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood
pressure was checked in the morning and evening and read 138/84, 143/98, 140/80, and 131/85,
respectively. On December 3, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was checked three times, reading at
153/93 at 1:39 a.m., 144/78 later in the morning, and 137/84 that evening. On December 4, 6, 7, 9
10, and 11, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was checked each morning and evening and read 128/76,

122/84, 141/85, 133/85, 142/90, 152/87, 124/82, 144/89, 122/78, 122/89, 153/90, and 139/73,
respectively.
On December 5 and 8, 2021, Plaintiff refused to have his blood pressure checked in the
morning, although it was checked in the evening on December 8, 2021, and read 184/102.
On December 12, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was read in the morning as 145/81. In
the evening it first read 160/110, then 169/106, and then after fifteen minutes, at 185/118. After
Plaintiff’s three evening blood pressure readings, a nurse called the doctor, who ordered Plaintiff
to take 0.2mg of Clonidine and have his blood pressure rechecked in an hour; if his diastolic was
over 90, the doctor directed Plaintiff to take another 0.2mg of Clonidine. That evening, Plaintiff
was given Clonidine and told to return in an hour for a recheck. Plaintiff returned to the HCU less
than an hour later complaining of chest pains and was given an EKG, which was normal. A nurse
called the doctor again regarding Plaintiff’s blood pressure, and the doctor directed the nurse to
give Plaintiff an intramuscular dose of 2mg Lorazepam, an antianxiety medication, and said he
would see Plaintiff the next day. The nurse gave Plaintiff a dose of Lorazepam but not the second

dose of Clonidine because Plaintiff’s diastolic reading was 80. That evening, Plaintiff’s blood
pressure was rechecked three times, first reading 177/104, then 185/118, and finally 160/80.
On December 13, 2021, Plaintiff alleges he passed out, but a nurse refused to provide any
medical care. At 2:30 a.m., Plaintiff complained of chest tightness, dizziness, and nausea, sore
throat, and mucus in his throat. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was checked and read 143/83, and he
was scheduled to see a doctor. Later that morning, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was checked and read
120/66. When Plaintiff saw the doctor in the evening, he reported dizziness and tiredness since
starting Gabapentin, an antiseizure medication, and asked to discontinue the medication. The
doctor observed no apparent distress, educated Plaintiff on the side effects of Gabapentin, and

prescribed 300mg of Gabapentin for two months and 600mg at bedtime for a month, with a follow-
up appointment in two weeks. That evening, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was checked and read
188/89.
Later in the evening on December 13, 2021, security staff called a nurse to Plaintiff’s
housing unit, where he was found sitting in a chair crying. Plaintiff had allegedly been standing
by the microwave, fell backwards, and his head on the floor. The nurse checked Plaintiff’s eyes,
and his pupils were equal in size (2mm), round, reactive, and light-sensitive. Plaintiff’s hand grips
and leg strengths were checked and found to be equal, he was fully alert and oriented, and no
redness or swelling was noted to the back of his head. Plaintiff denied any loss of consciousness,
nausea, or vomiting; his blood pressure was 162/78, with a pulse of 64; his temperature was 98
degrees; the doctor was notified; and Plaintiff was monitored through the night.
Shortly after midnight on December 14, 2021, Plaintiff was checked and found to be alert
and oriented, with equal hand grasp strength, clear speech, normal pupils/eyes, a steady gait, no
nausea or vomiting, blood pressure of 159/79, pulse of 70, and temperature of 97.4 degrees. Later

that day, Plaintiff was called to the HCU to discuss his ongoing health concerns with Defendant
Hogan. During this visit, Plaintiff was alert and oriented, his nervous system was normal, lungs
clear, heart tones strong, and pupils round and reactive. Plaintiff reported feeling a “little better”
and had no current complaints but expressed concern about having a stroke or heart attack.
Defendant Hogan discussed his prior labs, EKGs, and doctor’s visits; Plaintiff was informed he
would see the onsite doctor on Monday; and he was encouraged to alert nursing staff immediately
with any issues.
On December 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was checked at
least each morning and evening, reading 156/92 and 165/79; 126/88 and 160/70; 160/80 and

170/80 manually, with 146/112 automatic; 142/90 and 148/90; 128/88 and 160/80; and 130/86 and
138/94, respectively. On December 19, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was checked once in the
morning and twice at night, with readings of 140/90 manual and 134/95 automatic in the morning
and 150/80 and then 160/80 in the evening.
On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 160/82 when he saw the doctor. The
doctor assessed his lower back pain, ordered a low bunk for one year, reported awaiting a
cardiology consultation, and referred Plaintiff to psychiatry, but he refused.
Plaintiff’s blood pressure was checked each morning and evening from December 21-24,
2021, with readings of 160/82 and 152/79; 128/84 and 166/90 in right arm, then 160/80 in his left
arm; 126/88 and 158/90; and 140/86 automatic with 148/75 manual, then 130/80 and 130/60
manual.
On December 25, 2021, Plaintiff was referred for a psychiatric evaluation after multiple
visits to the emergency room with chest pain and negative medical workups. During his evaluation,
Plaintiff was upset about being referred to psychiatry, complained that his blood pressure “has

been at a dangerously high level” and of being at “high risk for stroke and heart attack,” and that
his father died in 2012 from a cardiac event. (Doc. 60-4 at p. 33). Plaintiff was on three
antihypertension medications (Metoprolol, Amlodipine, and Lisinopril) and a statin; his recent
lipid profile and metabolic panel were within normal limits except for two mild deviations; and a
cardiology appointment was pending. Plaintiff declined to consider a selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitor (“SSRI”) for risk of depression and expressed that, apart from his medical concerns, he
was “fine” and denied intense sadness, anhedonia, hopelessness, helplessness, or suicidal or
homicidal ideation. Plaintiff denied a history of symptoms consistent with coronary artery disease
and minimized the syncopal episodes or loss of consciousness reported by staff. There was no

evidence or reports of psychosis or mania, but Plaintiff appeared cooperative, defensive,
suspicious, and guarded, with his mood “all over the place,” his affect “irritable,” his judgment
fair and his insight poor. Id. As a result of Plaintiff’s evaluation, a psychiatrist determined that a
somatic symptom disorder was a “strong possibility.” Id. Somatic symptom disorder is
characterized by an extreme focus on physical symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, which causes
major emotional distress and problems functioning.
From December 25-31, 2021, Plaintiff’s blood pressure was checked in the morning and
afternoon or evening, reading 110/68 and 130/80; 120/64 and 126/82; 136/85 and 136/84; 128/80
and 142/84; 122/86 and 138/82; 124/84 and 126/80; and 142/80 and 130/70, respectively.
On January 5, 2022, security staff called Plaintiff to the HCU for a blood pressure check,
but Plaintiff refused.
On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff went to the Prairie Heart Institute in Springfield, Illinois for
a consultation with Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Andrea Bloodworth (“Bloodworth”)
regarding hypertension. In her progress notes, Bloodworth noted Plaintiff had a history of

hypertension and a family history of strokes, congestive heart failure, and coronary artery disease,
with his father dying from cardiac arrest. Bloodworth noted Plaintiff had been suffering from
hypertension for more than a year, back discomfort, and had four syncopal episodes since
November 14, 2021, in which he did not remember anything prior to losing consciousness.
Plaintiff’s blood pressure was uncontrolled during the visit with Bloodworth; she recommended
adding 5mg of Amlodipine at night to the 5mg of Amlodipine and 20mg of Lisinopril he already
took in the morning and the 50mg of Metoprolol he already took in the evening, as well as having
Plaintiff wear a cardiac monitor for thirty days. Bloodworth noted that, “[b]ased on his EKG
tracings from November, I suspect that given his uncontrolled hypertension, [Plaintiff] is suffering

from some degree of left ventricular hypertrophy. And given his recent episodes of syncope,
hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is also being considered. I will order an echocardiogram to be
performed prior to his upcoming appointment with me in February.” (Doc. 60-10 at p. 30).
Bloodworth’s instructions included, “[g]iven his EKG suggesting left ventricular hypertrophy as
well as his uncontrolled hypertension for greater than 3 months, I recommend [Plaintiff] undergo
an echocardiogram to assess for any diastolic dysfunction and to assess the severity of his probable
left ventricular hypertrophy.” Id. at p. 33.
Plaintiff bases his assertion that unchecked blood pressure caused irreparable damage to
his heart valve in part upon a medical record reporting his January 7, 2022, visit with Bloodworth,
but that report does not state that left ventricular hypertrophy is irreparable damage. (Doc. 60-1 at
134:17–135:19). Plaintiff acknowledged Bloodworth’s report did not support his claim of
irreparable damage, testifying, “I think science, science tells you that. I mean, you’re right, in the
report, but science tell you it’s unrepairable.” Id. at 135:13-15.
On January 9, 2022, Plaintiff came to the medication line stating that he had pain in his

chest/side area and was sent to the HCU. At the HCU, he reported his pain was on his left side
area, not the chest area; he was not feeling nauseated or short of breath; and it felt like his heart
skipped a beat. He was wearing a cardiac monitor, and a nurse checked his blood pressure, which
read 130/80.
On January 10, 2022, medical staff members were summoned to Plaintiff’s housing unit
after he lost consciousness. The nurse who responded checked Plaintiff’s vitals; his temperature
was 98.4 degrees, his pulse was 62; his blood pressure was 160/80; he was alert and oriented; and
his pupils were equal in size, reactive, light-sensitive, and accommodating. No apparent injury was
noted. In response to questioning, Plaintiff stated, “I’m good,” “don’t need to go to HCU.” (Doc.

60-3 at p. 29).
On January 11, 2022, Plaintiff passed out while speaking to a security guard, fell to the
ground, and hit his head. Plaintiff’s vital signs were taken, with his temperature at 97.3, pulse at
73, and blood pressure at 142/90. Plaintiff told medical staff his head hurt, stood up with no
difficulties, and walked back to his room.
On January 12, 2022, Plaintiff was called to the HCU to discuss his recent health issues
with Defendant Hogan. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 129/76; he was wearing his cardiac monitor;
and he reported wearing it during his recent syncopal episodes. The cardiologist’s office was
contacted regarding the episodes. Defendant Hogan spoke with Plaintiff about his various
symptoms, including short-term memory issues, chest heaviness with walking, weakness/fatigue
for the past two months that had intensified, and pressure on the right side of Plaintiff’s head that
“feels like it will push his eye out.” Id. at p. 27. Defendant Hogan told Plaintiff he could stay in
the infirmary due to his concerns, but Plaintiff declined.
On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff went to the HCU and was informed his cardiac report was

negative thus far and that he would see an eye doctor for the reported pressure behind his eye.
On January 22, 2022, Plaintiff saw a psychiatrist for a follow-up visit.
On February 8, 2022, a doctor at St. John’s Hospital in Springfield, Illinois reviewed
Plaintiff’s echocardiogram and determined his right and left ventricular size and volume were
normal, as was the left ventricular and right ventricular systolic function. Plaintiff was sent to the
Prairie Heart Institute for care the same day. Bloodworth reported that Plaintiff’s recent
echocardiogram “does not appear to demonstrate left ventricular hypertrophy,” that “there is no
significant LVH on his echocardiogram performed today,” that “there are no significant valvular
abnormalities,” and that Plaintiff “has had no more syncopal episodes since his gabapentin,

lorazepam, and tramadol were discontinued.” (Doc. 60-10 at pp. 20-21).
On February 12, 2022, a doctor at Prairie Heart Institute reviewed the results of Plaintiff’s
cardiac monitor from January 7, 2022, through February 5, 2022, and found his heart was
functioning normally.
On March 17, 2022, Plaintiff saw an optometrist regarding blurry vision. The optometrist
referred Plaintiff to the emergency department. A doctor at Sarah D. Culbertson Memorial Hospital
examined Plaintiff, and a nurse subsequently reported no findings during Plaintiff’s visit.
On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff came to the HCU requesting to speak with Defendant Hogan,
asked to learn more about pseudo seizures and stress management, expressed concern that nursing
staff think he is “faking it,” and refused to see psychiatry by stating, “I don’t want to be diagnosed
with anything. I am trying to get out of here.” (Doc. 60-2 at p. 82).
On August 25, 2022, Defendant Hogan was notified that a neurologist declined to see
Plaintiff after reviewing his case, including 156 pages of notes, CT scans, and a brain MRI.
On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff saw a doctor at Prairie Cardiovascular Consultants

concerning his syncope episode. The doctor recommended that “[w]ith his normal left ventricular
systolic function and previously unremarkable arrhythmia monitor, I suspect his syncopal episodes
are noncardiac in etiology.” (Doc. 60-9 at p. 44).
Defendant Twila Batterton
Plaintiff is not sure of the exact dates he encountered Defendant RN Batterton. Plaintiff
claims Defendant Batterton was deliberately indifferent when she did not contact a doctor when
Plaintiff’s blood pressure was at a certain level and when she did not check his blood pressure
when he had a PRN order from a doctor to check it. A “PRN” order from a doctor or nurse to check
a resident’s blood pressure means to check it as needed. (Doc. 60-13 at ¶ 24). A “PRN” order does

not mean HCU staff must check a resident’s blood pressure on demand by the resident. Id. Plaintiff
also complained that Defendant Batterton checked his blood pressure too many times. (Doc. 60-1
at 95:5-21). Plaintiff testified he could not say whether Defendant Batterton’s actions or inactions
harmed him. (Doc. 60-1 at 96:19-97:7).
Based on her review of Plaintiff’s HCU records, Defendant Batterton did not encounter or
provide health care to Plaintiff from August 1, 2021, through January 31, 2022. Defendant
Batterton charted that Plaintiff was transported to Sarah D. Culbertson Memorial Hospital on
October 3, 2022, and to Prairie Heart Institute on January 7, 2022, and February 8, 2022. (Doc.
60-12).
Defendant Lisa Brown
Plaintiff does not know the exact dates when he encountered Defendant LPN Brown.
Plaintiff named Brown as a Defendant because she allegedly did not check Plaintiff’s blood
pressure when he requested her to check it. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Brown falsely said he
refused to see the doctor or go to the HCU.

Based on her review of Plaintiff’s HCU records, Defendant Brown did not encounter or
provide medical care to Plaintiff from August 1, 2021, through January 31, 2022. (Doc. 60-13 at
¶ 21). The only entry in Plaintiff’s medical records regarding Defendant Brown during this period,
was when she charted that Plaintiff refused to come for sick call at 10:20 a.m. on November 16,
2021. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 23.
Defendant Mindy Griffin
Plaintiff testified he named LPN Griffin as a Defendant because she did not take his blood
pressure when he requested and refused to check it four times. (Doc. 60-1 at 105:17-22; 109:5-
11). Plaintiff does not know the exact dates when he encountered Defendant Griffin. Plaintiff

claims Defendant Griffin sometimes did not take his blood pressure and oxygen when he was to
take certain medication and then would say, “Oh, well, you can take [the medication] or you don’t
have to take it[.]” Id. at 107:4–108:5. Based on her review of Plaintiff’s HCU records, Defendant
Griffin did not provide medical care to Plaintiff from August 1, 2021, through January 31, 2022.
(Doc. 60-14 at ¶ 20).
Defendant Heather Hogan
Plaintiff named Director of Nursing Heather Hogan as a Defendant based upon her staff
allegedly not responding appropriately. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Hogan did not take action when
he informed her that her staff was not providing care or monitoring his condition. Plaintiff
complained to Defendant Hogan that her staff would take multiple blood pressure readings until
they got a desired number. According to Defendant Hogan, nursing staff routinely allowed a
resident to rest before taking the resident’s blood pressure to ensure a true reading, and taking a
blood-pressure reading in both arms allows a physician to see the entire picture when giving an
update on a patient’s condition. (Doc. 60-15 at ¶ 32).

Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Hogan interfered with and impeded his treatment,
including influencing a nurse practitioner that some of his ailments were in his head and altering
treatment plans, recommendations, and orders, such as changing Tylenol to Motrin. (Doc. 60-1 at
111:4-15, 112:16-113:9). Plaintiff alleges Defendant Hogan discontinued his PRN blood-pressure
order, which then was restored. Id. at 110:20–111:3. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Hogan
discontinued the PRN blood-pressure order Bloodworth issued. Id. at 111:16–112:3.
Based on her review of Plaintiff’s HCU records, Defendant Hogan encountered Plaintiff
on three occasions from August 1, 2021, through January 31, 2022. (Doc. 60-15 at ¶ 21). On
December 14, 2021, Defendant Hogan called Plaintiff to the HCU to discuss his ongoing health

concerns. Id. at ¶ 22. She noted Plaintiff was alert and oriented, and his heart tones were strong.
Plaintiff reported he felt a “little better” but was concerned about having a stroke or heart attack.
Defendant Hogan reviewed his prior laboratory test results, electrocardiograms, and doctor visits.
Defendant Hogan informed Plaintiff he would see the onsite doctor on Monday, and she
encouraged Plaintiff to alert nursing immediately with any issues.
On January 12, 2022, Defendant Hogan again called Plaintiff to the HCU to discuss his
recent health issues. Id. at ¶ 23. Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 129/76, and he was wearing a heart
monitor for thirty days as directed. Plaintiff reported he was wearing the monitor during his
syncopal episodes. Defendant Hogan contacted the cardiologist’s office regarding the syncopal
episodes. Defendant Hogan spoke to Plaintiff at length about his various symptoms, including
short-term memory issues, chest heaviness with walking, pressure on the right side of his head that
“feels like it will push his eye out,” and weakness and fatigue for two months that had “intensified.”
Id. When asked about the syncopal episodes, Plaintiff reported remembering nothing until waking
up and feeling dizzy afterward. Plaintiff reported the cardiology appointment revealed some

probable left ventricular hypertrophy due to high blood pressure. Defendant Hogan offered to
allow Plaintiff to stay in the infirmary, but he declined.
On January 13, 2022, Defendant Hogan called Plaintiff to the HCU and informed him that
his cardiac report was negative thus far and that Plaintiff was to see an eye doctor for his report of
pressure behind his eye. Id. at ¶ 24.
On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff went the HCU and requested to talk to Defendant Hogan about
pseudo seizures and stress management and expressed concern that nursing staff think he is “faking
it.” Id. at ¶ 28. Plaintiff refused to see Psychology and said, “I don’t want to be diagnosed with
anything. I am trying to get out of here.” Id.

Defendant Hogan attended many of Plaintiff’s health care appointments with him to ensure
continuity of care and to advocate for him, as Plaintiff continually complained about his medical
care. Id. at ¶ 38. According to Defendant Hogan, she used her medical judgment in providing care
and treatment to Plaintiff based on his presentation and her medical knowledge. Id. at ¶ 39.
Defendant Lucinda McKenna
Plaintiff does not know the exact dates when he encountered Defendant LPN McKenna.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant McKenna allowed another nurse to persuade her from performing her
job duties as a nurse. (Doc. 60-1 at 114:3-8). Plaintiff claims Defendant McKenna said his blood
pressure was too high and that she needed to contact the doctor, but Defendant Batterton allegedly
said, “No, we’re not calling the doctor.” Id. at 114:14–115:18. Plaintiff claims he named McKenna
as a Defendant only because she knew of his PRN blood pressure order but did not follow it. Based
on her review of Plaintiff’s HCU records, Defendant McKenna did not encounter or provide
medical care to Plaintiff from August 1, 2021, through January 31, 2022. (Doc. 60-16 at ¶ 20).
Defendant Michelle Shults

Plaintiff does not know the exact dates when he encountered Defendant Shults. Plaintiff
states he passed out on November 19, 2021, and hit his head on the floor. (Doc. 60-1 at 64:21-
65:1; 66:12-20). Plaintiff claims he was simply picked up off the floor, put in a room, given
Tylenol, and was not taken to the HCU for testing. Id. at 66:21-67:6. Plaintiff thinks the nurse who
responded to the fall was Defendant Shults, but she was not present when he first regained
consciousness. Id. at 67:9-10; 68:10-15; 71:7-9. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Shults both did and
did not ask whether Plaintiff had hit his head. Id. at 67:9–11; 68:16–69:4. Plaintiff alleges
Defendant Shults should have taken him to the HCU, examined him after the incident, and
performed certain tests. Id. at 70:6-11; 73:11-16; 75:1-3; 116:20-117:9.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Hogan told him that when he had a blood pressure and
cardiovascular episode, he was to be taken to the HCU and checked to see if he was having a stroke
by being given a variety of tests. Id. at 67:23-68:5; 74:11-19. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Shults
did not call him to the HCU when his blood pressure was elevated. Id. at 117:15-22.
Based on her review of Plaintiff’s HCU records, Defendant Shults only provided medical
care to Plaintiff once between August 1, 2021, and January 31, 2022. (Doc. 60-17 at ¶ 21). On
December 13, 2021, Defendant Shults responded to a call from security staff and found Plaintiff
sitting in a chair crying after he passed out and hit his head. Id. at ¶ 22. Defendant Shults checked
Plaintiff’s vitals; his temperature was 98 degrees, pulse was 64 beats per minute, and blood
pressure was 162/78. Plaintiff was alert and oriented and his pupils were equally round, reactive
to light, and accommodating. Id. Defendant Shults checked Plaintiff’s hand grip and leg strength,
which were equal. Plaintiff denied any loss of consciousness, nausea, or vomiting. Defendant
Shults observed no redness or swelling at the back of Plaintiff’s head. Defendant Shults notified
Dr. Sood of the incident and noted Plaintiff would be monitored through the night. According to

Defendant Schults, she used her medical judgment in providing care and treatment to Plaintiff
based on his presentation and her medical knowledge. Id. at ¶ 26.
Defendant Sara Watson
Plaintiff does not know the exact dates when he encountered Defendant RN Watson.
Plaintiff alleges he named Watson as a Defendant because of her attitude, his encounters with her
were inappropriate, she refused to take his blood pressure multiple times, and she accused him of
faking his condition. (Doc. 60-1 at 118:8-21; 121:6-10; 123:6-13).
Defendant Watson did not encounter or provide medical care to Plaintiff from August 1,
2021, through January 31, 2022. (Doc. 60-18 at ¶ 20). As a result, Defendant Watson did not

document that Plaintiff reported dizziness, headaches, shortness of breath, or high blood pressure.
Id. at ¶ 21.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P.
56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). In ruling on a motion for
summary judgment, “[t]he court has one task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence
of record, whether there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial.” Waldridge v. Am.
Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994). In making this determination, the court must
construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of that party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
“Inferences that are supported by only speculation or conjecture will not defeat a summary
judgment motion.” McDonald v. Vill. of Winnetka, 371 F.3d 992, 1001 (7th Cir. 2004). In order to
successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must do more than raise a

“‘metaphysical doubt’ as to the material facts, and instead must present definite, competent
evidence to rebut the motion.” Michael v. St. Joseph Cnty., 259 F.3d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 2001)
(internal citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
Because Plaintiff is a civil detainee, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
governs his medical care claims. Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 893 (7th Cir. 2008); McGee v.
Adams, 721 F.3d 474, 480 (7th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Fourteenth
Amendment rights when they allegedly refused to respond when he reported dizziness, headaches,
and shortness of breath, failed to monitor his blood pressure, and did not notify a doctor when his

blood pressure was too high from August 1, 2021, through January 31, 2022. (Doc. 8 at pp. 3-6).
Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff did not suffer from an
objectively serious medical need, and they were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical
needs. (Doc. 60).
I. Plaintiff suffered from an objectively serious medical need.
First, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s reported dizziness, headaches, and shortness of
breath, along with their alleged refusal to monitor his blood pressure or to notify a doctor when his
blood pressure was high, did not constitute an objectively serious medical condition. (Doc. 60 at
pp. 45-48).
A serious medical need is one diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one so
obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.
Foelker v. Outagamie Cnty., 394 F.3d 510, 512 (7th Cir. 2005). A medical need is serious where
failing to treat the prisoner’s condition could cause further significant injury or the unnecessary
and wanton infliction of pain. See Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997).

Defendants assert that dizziness, headaches, and shortness of breath are relatively minor
conditions and not objectively serious. Kimbrough v. Stutleen, 411 F. App’x 882, 884 (7th Cir.
2011) (dizziness and shortness of breath); Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 846 (7th Cir.
1999) (dizziness, headaches, and breathing problems). Here, however, the evidence shows that
Plaintiff underwent multiple electrocardiograms, was referred to cardiology specialists, diagnosed
with hypertension, prescribed medications, and his blood pressure was monitored frequently. High
blood pressure, or hypertension, is a serious medical condition. See Jackson v. Pollion, 733 F.3d
786, 789-90 (7th Cir. 2013). The Court finds there is sufficient evidence that Plaintiff suffered
from an objectively serious medical condition.

II. Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendants’ conduct is assessed using the objective
reasonableness standard. Miranda v. Cnty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir. 2019). To prove
Defendants failed to provide reasonable medical care, Plaintiff must first show that Defendants
acted purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly. McCann v. Ogle Cnty., Illinois, 909 F.3d 881, 886
(7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Miranda, 900 F.3d at 353). If Defendants were “aware that their actions
would be harmful, then they acted purposefully or knowingly; if they were not necessarily aware
but nevertheless strongly suspected that their actions would lead to harmful results, then they acted
recklessly.” Pittman by & through Hamilton v. Cnty. of Madison, Illinois, 970 F.3d 823, 828 (7th
Cir. 2020). “A showing of negligence or even gross negligence will not suffice.” McCann, 909
F.3d at 886. A difference in opinion over the course of treatment “suggests only negligence, which
is not a constitutional violation.” Bell v. Blaesing, 844 F. App’x 924, 926 (7th Cir. 2021).
Significantly, “[w]ithout any medical evidence of inadequate treatment, a prisoner’s self-serving
opinion of the quality of treatment is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact.” Walker

v. Zunker, 30 F. App’x 625, 628 (7th Cir. 2002).
Second, Plaintiff must show the challenged conduct was objectively reasonable. “This
standard requires courts to focus on the totality of facts and circumstances faced by the individual
alleged to have provided inadequate medical care and to gauge objectively—without regard to any
subjective belief held by the individual—whether the response was reasonable.” McCann, 909
F.3d at 886. Treatment decisions made by qualified professionals are presumptively valid and
entitled to deference, unless the evidence shows the decision constituted such a substantial
departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate the person
responsible did not base the decision upon such judgment. Seidler v. Liberty Healthcare Corp.,

No. 20-4258, 2023 WL 2653346, at *6 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2023).
Objective unreasonableness under the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be shown through
the actions of a collective group, as Plaintiff attempts to do here. See Shields v. Illinois Dept. of
Corr., 746 F.3d 782, 795 (7th Cir. 2014). Instead, Plaintiff must present enough evidence for a
jury to find that a particular Defendant was personally involved. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 676 (2009).
Here, many of the Defendants had limited involvement in Plaintiff’s medical care. For
instance, the only entry in Plaintiff’s medical records regarding Defendant Brown was when she
charted that Plaintiff refused to come for sick call on November 16, 2021. Similarly, Defendant
Batterton charted that Plaintiff was transported to the hospital on October 3, 2022, and to Prairie
Heart Institute on January 7, 2022, and February 8, 2022.
Defendant Shults provided medical care on only one occasion when she responded to a call
from security staff after Plaintiff passed out and hit his head on December 13, 2021. Defendant
Shults checked Plaintiff’s vitals, his eyes, hand grip, and leg strength and saw no cause for concern.

Plaintiff denied any loss of consciousness, nausea, or vomiting, and Defendant Shults observed no
redness or swelling at the back of Plaintiff’s head. Defendant Shults notified the doctor, who
ordered Plaintiff to be monitored through the night.
Plaintiff claims Defendants Watson and Griffin refused to take his blood pressure multiple
times, and Defendant McKenna allegedly did not contact the doctor when Plaintiff’s blood
pressure was too high because Defendant Batterton told her not to. Defendants’ occasional refusal
to check Plaintiff’s blood pressure or report his high blood pressure to a doctor does not amount
to deliberate indifference. High blood pressure readings, by themselves, are insufficient to
demonstrate harm to a plaintiff’s medical condition. Foote v. Lewis, 2014 WL 202706, at *3 (N.D.

Ill. 2014) (pretrial detainee). While a nurse’s mistaken failure to check a plaintiff’s blood pressure
might constitute negligence, it does not violate the constitution. Cf. Dickerson v. Schmitt, No. 7:23-
CV-00068, 2023 WL 3726507, at *7 (W.D. Va. May 30, 2023) (“[S]uch negligence, without more,
does not violate the Eighth Amendment.”); Wethington v. Al-Shami, No. 1:10-CV-00027-TWP,
2011 WL 6415539, at *8 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 21, 2011) (“While there is no evidence in [Plaintiff’s]
medical record indicating that her blood pressure and pulse were checked on October 28, 2008,
any omission in monitoring caused by [Defendant’s] conduct demonstrates only negligence, which
does not rise to level of deliberate indifference.”).
Plaintiff claims that Defendant Hogan interfered with his medical care by altering his
treatment plans. Based on Plaintiff’s HCU records, Defendant Hogan encountered Plaintiff on
three occasions from August 1, 2021, through January 31, 2022. There is no evidence that
Defendant Hogan was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs; Plaintiff’s medical
records show that medical staff members attended to him nearly daily for months, often taking his

blood pressure three times a day. Plaintiff was prescribed numerous medications, including for
high blood pressure, and his prescriptions were adjusted based upon the latest assessment of his
condition. Rushville healthcare providers also sent Plaintiff to outside cardiac specialists and the
local hospital.
Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that Defendants’ alleged acts or omissions caused
any harm or that he suffered irreparable damage to a heart valve. (Doc. 65). Plaintiff initially relied
on a report from his January 7, 2022, visit with Nurse Practitioner Andrea Bloodworth of Prairie
Heart Institute in support of his assertion that he suffered damage to a heart valve, but after being
shown the report at his deposition, Plaintiff acknowledged it did not state there was irreparable

damage. Moreover, during a subsequent visit with Bloodworth on February 8, 2022, she
determined after reviewing the results from his echocardiogram, that Plaintiff had no significant
valvular dysfunction and no significant left ventricular hypertrophy that could be prompting his
symptoms. Based on the undisputed material facts, no reasonable jury would find that Defendants
were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Therefore, summary judgment is
granted in favor of Defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
(1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [60] is GRANTED. Defendants
Heather Hogan, Michelle Shults, Twila Batterton, Sara Watson, Lucinda McKenna, Lisa Brown,
and Mindy Griffin are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff takes nothing. The parties will
bear their own costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
(2) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a notice of appeal with this
Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a).
(3) If Plaintiff wishes to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, his motion for leave to

appeal in forma pauperis must identify the issues Plaintiff will present on appeal to assist the Court
in determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(c); see also
Celske v. Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999) (an appellant should be given an opportunity
to submit a statement of his grounds for appealing so that the district judge “can make a responsible
assessment of the issue of good faith.”); Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000)
(providing that a good faith appeal is an appeal that “a reasonable person could suppose . . . has
some merit” from a legal perspective). If Plaintiff chooses to appeal, he will be liable for the
$605.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal.

ENTERED: 6/17/2024

s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10137599. Public record. Not legal advice.