Opinion

Brown v. Wheatley

Court
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Filed
May 7, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 32.5%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JAIRUS J. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 20-C-423

DR. PHILLIP WHEATLEY,

DR. BRIAN GROGAN, and

DR. GEOFFREY BAER,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, VACATING DIMISSAL,

AND DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Jairus Brown, an inmate at Oshkosh Correctional Institution (OCI), filed this pro

se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his civil rights were violated. In a screening order,

the court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference and age discrimination against Dr.

Wheatly, who works at OCI, and Drs. Brian Grogan and Geoffrey Baer, both of whom are

allegedly employed by UW Health, a clinic connected to the University of Wisconsin. Drs. Grogan

and Baer allegedly provide prisoners health care through a contract with OCI. Plaintiff claimed

the defendant doctors violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment

by refusing to replace his knee, even though no other treatment can alleviate his pain. Plaintiff has

filed a motion for reconsideration, requesting that his action be allowed to proceed. Dkt. No. 13.

For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted.

Plaintiff requests that the court reconsider its decision to dismiss his action based on his

allegation that the defendants knowingly pursued ineffective treatment for his knee condition. In

its screening order, the court found that Plaintiff’s disagreement with his doctors’ medical

treatment plan and decisions was insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference under the

Eighth Amendment. The court also dismissed Plaintiff’s claims of age discrimination, finding that

Plaintiff’s complaint stated no allegation that he was a member of a protected class or that the

defendants subjected him to unreasonable or invidious discrimination.

Plaintiff argues that the defendants knew knee replacement surgery was the only effective

treatment for his degenerative knee condition. Plaintiff claims that the defendants refused to

provide this single effective treatment option, however, solely because Plaintiff was too young, at

33 years old, for a knee replacement. Instead, they pursued ineffective treatment options,

providing knee injections and pain relief medication. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that the

defendants knowingly pursued a course of treatment that was ineffective to treat his serious

medical condition.

In summarily dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, the court noted that an inmate’s

disagreement with the professional judgment of a physician was not enough to state a claim for

deliberate indifference. Orthopedic surgeons generally do not recommend knee replacements for

younger people since they are likely to live long enough to require a second or even a third.

Plaintiff’s complaint at its core, however, is that the doctors denied him medical care that addressed

his serious medical condition in an effective manner. The Seventh Circuit has held that the

allegation that a physician doggedly persisted in a course of treatment he knew to be ineffective

can be sufficient to establish deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Greeno v. Daley,

414 F.3d 645, 655 (7th Cir. 2005). In light of this precedent, I now conclude the case must proceed.

I also note that it is unclear whether Drs. Grogan and Baer can be said to be acting under

state law, since they are serving as physicians who serve the public and are not employees of OCI

or the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. I am unable to determine that issue on the pleadings

alone, however, and so they will remain in the case at least for now.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No.

13) is GRANTED. The April 24, 2020 judgment is ordered VACATED and any strike incurred

is to be expunged. Plaintiff may proceed on deliberate indifference claims against the defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to an informal service agreement between

the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, copies of Plaintiff’s complaint and this order

are being electronically sent today to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for service on the state

defendants, including Drs. Wheatley, Grogan, and Baer.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the informal service agreement between

the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, the defendants shall file a responsive pleading

to the complaint within sixty days of receiving electronic notice of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may not begin discovery until after the

court enters a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Prisoner E-Filing Program, Plaintiff

shall submit all correspondence and case filings to institution staff, who will scan and e-mail

documents to the court. The Prisoner E-Filing Program is in effect at Columbia Correctional

Institution, Dodge Correctional Institution, Green Bay Correctional Institution, Oshkosh

Correctional Institution, Waupun Correctional Institution, and Wisconsin Secure Program Facility.

If Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at a Prisoner E-Filing Program institution, he will be required

to submit all correspondence and legal material to:

Honorable William C. Griesbach

c/o Office of the Clerk

United States District Court

Eastern District of Wisconsin

125 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 102

Green Bay, WI 54301

PLEASE DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS. It will

only delay the processing of the matter.

Plaintiff is further advised that failure to make a timely submission may result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

In addition, the parties must notify the Clerk of Court of any change of address. Failure to

do so could result in orders or other information not being timely delivered, thus affecting the legal

rights of the parties. Therefore, failure to provide your correct address could result in dismissal of

your case for failure to prosecute.

Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 7th day of May, 2020.

s/ William C. Griesbach

William C. Griesbach, District Judge

United States District Court - WIED

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.