Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Winebarger v. Corizon, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division

March 18, 2019

RICHARD B. WINEBARGER, Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court are Corizon LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #106) and Defendant Sturm's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and Suggestions in Support (Doc. #116). Corizon LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #106) is DENIED and Defendant Sturm's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #116) is GRANTED.

         I. Legal Standard

         A moving party is entitled to summary judgment on a claim “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). Material facts are those “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, ” and a genuine dispute over a material fact is one “such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

         “Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the [nonmovant] and giving [the nonmovant] the benefit of all reasonable inferences, shows there are no genuine issues of material fact and [the movant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Price v. N. States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186, 1191 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

         “Once the moving party has made and supported their motion, the nonmoving party must proffer admissible evidence demonstrating a genuine dispute as to a material fact.” Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). A party opposing summary judgment “may not rest upon mere allegation or denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.

         “[S]ummary judgment should not be granted if a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party.” Woodsmith Publ'g Co. v. Meredith Corp., 904 F.2d 1244, 1247 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The purpose of summary judgment “is not to cut litigants off from their right of trial by jury if they really have issues to try.” Hughes v. Am. Jawa, Ltd., 529 F.2d 21, 23 (8th Cir. 1976) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 467 (1962)).

         II. Background

         Since Plaintiff Richard B. Winebarger filed the Complaint on May 8, 2017, several claims and parties have been dismissed. The remaining defendants are Corizon, L.L.C., Matt Sturm, and three John/Jane Doe Defendants. In its present motion, Defendant Corizon asks the Court to find that it is entitled to summary judgment as to the claims that remain against it: 1) Count I - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical need and failure to provide medical care and treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 2) Count II - § 1983 claim for failure to train/inadequate training in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 3) Count III - § 1983 claim for failure to supervise, direct, and control/inadequate supervision, direction, and control in violation of the Eighth Amendment. By separate motion, Defendant Sturm asks the Court to find he is entitled to summary judgment as to the claims that remain against him: 1) Count IV - § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical need and failure to provide medical care and treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 2) Count V - § 1983 claim for failure to supervise, direct, and control/inadequate supervision, direction and control in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

         Considering the parties' statements of fact and supporting evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party, the Court finds the relevant facts to be as follows:

         On May 12, 2012, Plaintiff pled guilty to a charge of receiving stolen property and was sentenced to fifteen years with a suspended execution of sentence and five years of supervised probation. On August 5, 2014, Plaintiff's probation was revoked, and on August 8, 2014, he was remanded to Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Correctional Center (“FRDC”). Defendant Corizon is a corporate correctional health care provider contracted by the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) to provide health care services for all inmates confined to state correctional facilities, including FRDC.

         At all relevant times, Defendant Sturm was the MDOC Director of the Division of Offender Rehabilitative Services (“DORS”). DORS is responsible for the development of treatment and service programs for offenders, including health care. Defendant Sturm has no medical training and did not provide medical care to Plaintiff.

         While on probation in July 2012, Plaintiff underwent the implantation of an AICD/Pacemaker device, which is designed to shock his heart back into a normal rhythm and save his life from an underlying disease process of ventricular fibrillation. On April 17, 2014, while still on probation, Plaintiff was diagnosed with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (“HOCM”) by Dr. Ha at Hannibal Regional Hospital. Dr. Ha's notes from Plaintiff's April 17, 2014, visit state Plaintiff “presented to the hospital with recurrent syncope within the last several months[, ]” and “[p]atient will be consulting with Dr. Richard Bach at Barnes-Jewish Hospital (“BJH”) for possible consideration of alcohol septal ablation versus septal myomectomy to prevent recurrent syncope episodes.”[1]

         During his Receiving Screening at FRDC on August 8, 2014, Plaintiff reported he had an AICD/Pacemaker. Plaintiff also reported his hypertrophic cardiomyopathy diagnosis and that he had seen a medical professional regarding his heart in the last six months. Dr. Alfred Garcia, the Corizon Medical Director ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.