Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00483/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00483-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

DANNY RAY BROWN, #130502, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:13-CV-483-TMH

) [WO]

)

MARY COOKS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Danny Ray

Brown [“Brown”], a state inmate, in which he challenges the adequacy of medical

treatment provided to him for a head injury suffered during his employment while on work

release. On September 26, 2013, Brown filed a second motion for injunction seeking

1

emergencymedical treatment (Doc. No. 28), and, on October 10, 2013, filed a third motion

for injunction again seeking emergency medical treatment (Doc. No. 34). The court

construed each of these documents as a motion for preliminary injunction.

2

At the time of his injury, Brown was incarcerated at the Alex City Work Release Facility [“ACWR”]. He

1

is now incarcerated at the Frank Lee Work Release Facility [“FLWR”].

In these motions, Brown requests issuance of immediate injunctions requiring that the defendants provide

2

him specific types of medical treatment for his head injury, i.e., referral to a free-world neurologist for evaluation and

performance of an “MRI, and or Cat-Scan [of] his head, neck and shoulder areas” to determine the seriousness of his

conditions. Doc. No. 28 at 2; Doc. No. 34 at 2.

Case 3:13-cv-00483-WHA-TFM Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 9
On October 10, 2013, the defendantsfiled a response in opposition to the plaintiff’s

requests for preliminary injunctive relief supported by relevant medical records and an

affidavit from an attending physician. In thisresponse, the defendants maintain that since

3

his head injuryBrown has had continuous access to medical care and hasreceived medical

treatment for this injury and his complaints of neck/shoulder pain in accordance with the

professional judgment of health care personnel. The defendants therefore argue that

issuance of a preliminary injunction is not warranted as Brown does not meet each of the

requisite elements for issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Upon review of the latest motionsfor preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 28 and Doc.

No. 34) and each of the responses filed by the defendants, the court concludes that the

aforementioned motions for preliminary injunction are due to be denied.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction “is within the sound

discretion of the district court....” Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11 Cir. 2002).

th

This court may grant a preliminary injunction only if Brown demonstrates each of the

following prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a

substantial threat irreparable injury will occur absent issuance of the injunction; (3) the

On September 23, 2013, the defendants had previously filed a response addressing similar claims presented

3

by Brown in an earlier motion for preliminary injunction. The court entered a Recommendation on October 7, 2013

that such motion be denied. Doc. No. 32. 

2

Case 3:13-cv-00483-WHA-TFM Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 2 of 9
threatened injury outweighs the potential damage the requested injunction may cause the

non-moving parties; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.

Palmer, 287 F.3d at 1329; McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 Cate v.

Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 (11 Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp.,

th

697 F.2d 1352 (11 Cir. 1983). “In this Circuit, ‘[a] preliminary injunction is an

th

extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established

the “burden of persuasion”’ as to the four requisites.” McDonald’s, 147 F.3d at 1306; All

Care Nursing Service, Inc. v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11

th

Cir. 1989) (a preliminary injunction is issued only when “drastic relief” is necessary);

Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5 Cir. 1975) (grant of preliminary

th

injunction “isthe exception rather than the rule,” and movant must clearly carry the burden

of persuasion). The moving party’s failure to demonstrate a “substantial likelihood of

success on the merits” may defeat the party’s claim, regardless of the party’s ability to

establish any of the other elements. Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1342 (11

th

Cir. 1994);see also Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11 Cir. 2000) (noting that “the

th

absence of a substantial likelihood of irreparable injury would, standing alone, make

preliminary injunctive relief improper”). “‘The chief function of a preliminary injunction

is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the controversy can be fully and fairly

adjudicated.’ Northeastern Fl. Chapter of Ass’n of Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of

3

Case 3:13-cv-00483-WHA-TFM Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 3 of 9
Jacksonville, Fl., 896 F.2d 1283, 1284 (11 Cir.1990).” Suntrust Bank v. Houghton

th

Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11 Cir. 2001).

th

III. DISCUSSION

Brown seeks issuance of preliminary injunctions requiring immediate medical

treatment in the form of referral to a free-world physician for evaluation and the

performance of various radiological scans. Doc. No. 28 at 2; Doc. No. 34 at 2. In response

to the requests for preliminary injunctive relief, the defendants maintain that Brown has

received all necessary and appropriate treatment for his head injury and complaints of pain

in his neck and shoulder. Doc. No. 24; Doc. No. 33. The affidavits of Dr. Bobby A.

Crocker, the Regional Medical Director for Corizon Health, Inc. who is currently serving

as a physician at the Staton Correctional Facility, address Brown’s allegations as follows:

It is my understanding that Mr. Brown is dissatisfied with the level of

medical care afforded him at FLWR. Specifically, Mr. Brown disputes the

treatment provided to him for headaches allegedly stemming from a minor

head injury he sustained when a piece of lumber fell on his head while

working as a laborer for a lumber company. Based upon my review of Mr.

Brown’s medical records and the care I and the medicalstaff provided to Mr.

Brown during his incarceration at FLWR, I can state to a degree of medical

certainty that Mr. Brown received more than [an] adequate degree of medical

treatment during his incarceration at FLWR for his headaches. Moreover,

I cannot find any reason for Mr. Brown to claim that the medical treatment

afforded him has been anything less than complete, appropriate and

acceptable in any respect.

Mr. Brown transferred from ACWR to FLWR on August 17, 2013.

Mr. Brown first voiced complaints regarding headaches to the FLWR

medical staff on September 4, 2013, and the medical staff evaluated Mr.

Brown thatsame day. During this evaluation, Mr. Brown did not exhibit any

4

Case 3:13-cv-00483-WHA-TFM Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 4 of 9
signs of trauma, damage or injury. Additionally, Mr. Brown was alert and

oriented to person, place and time, exhibited a normal gait and had equal

hand pressure and facial symmetry. Following this evaluation, the medical

staff provided Mr. Brown with a ten (10) day prescription for I-Prin

(Ibuprofen) and referred Mr. Brown for further evaluation by the nurse

practitioner.

Consistent with the medical staff’s referral, the nurse practitioner at

FLWR physically examined Mr. Brown on September 17, 2013, for his

continued complaints of headaches. During this examination, Mr. Brown

indicated he suffered pressure style discomfort to the front of his head, the

back of his head and behind his ear. In addition, Mr. Brown stated “pain off”

medication effectively eliminated his discomfort. Mr. Brown did not exhibit

any signs of trauma, damage, injury or other abnormality at the examination.

Following this examination, the nurse practitioner ruled out an upper

respiratory infection or the medical need for diagnostic imaging and entered

orders prescribing Mr. Brown with hisrequested acetophenamin (Pain Off).

Because Mr. Brown continued to express complaints regarding

headaches, on September 19, 2013, I physically examined Mr. Brown. At

this examination, Mr. Brown stated he has continued to experience

headaches since May 2013 and Mr. Brown complained of right shoulder

pain. I examined Mr. Brown’s head and right shoulder and did not

discover[] any signs of trauma, damage or abnormality. Given Mr. Brown’s

continued use of over-the-counter style headache medications, I cautioned

Mr. Brown about rebound headaches. Rebound headaches, or medicationoveruse headaches, are caused by frequent use of headache medication.

Headache pain relievers offer relief for occasional headaches but if a patient

takes them more than a couple of days a week, the patient may trigger

rebound headaches. To stop rebound headaches, a patient must reduce or

stop taking the headache medication. Some patients exhibit signs of drug

withdraw[al] if they abruptly stop taking headache medication. However, a

long-acting analgesic or anti-inflammatory, such as naproxen or Excedrin

taken twice a day, can be used to ease headaches during the withdrawal

period.

Following my physical examination of Mr. Brown, I entered an order

prescribing Mr. Brown Excedrin migraine twice a day for two weeks. In

addition, I entered an order for Mr. Brown to undergo an x-ray of his right

shoulder to fully diagnose hisshoulder complaints. To the extent Mr. Brown

continues to seek medical attention and care, the FLWR medical staff, the

5

Case 3:13-cv-00483-WHA-TFM Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 5 of 9
Staton medical staff and I will continue to provide Mr. Brown with the

necessary medical attention, care and treatment.

.... With regard to Mr. Brown’s specific allegations, neither I nor the

medicalstaff neglected him in any waywhen he voiced complaintsregarding

headaches. The medicalstaffroutinelyevaluated and examined Mr.Brown’s

head and prescribed medications when appropriate. The medical staff has

not at any time deliberately ignored any medical complaints or request made

by Mr. Brown....

Defendants’ Attachment 1 to the Response to Plaintiff’s Initial Motion for Preliminary

Injunction - Doc. No. 24-1 at 6-9 (citations to medical records omitted).

In a subsequent affidavit filed in response to Brown’s second motion for preliminary

injunction, Dr. Crocker continues his assessment of the treatment provided to Brown.

It is apparent that Mr. Brown is no longer utilizing the existing

medical processes and procedures to request medical treatment. Mr. Brown

did not file a sick call request form pursuant to the long-standing medical

procedures at the Frank Lee Work Center (“FLWR”), but instead chose to

file a motion with the Court.

On October 2, 2013, I conducted a follow-up examination of Mr.

Brown. Consistent with my prior interactions with Mr. Brown, he voiced

complaints of headaches and shoulder pain, but a full physical examination

did not reveal any injury, damage, trauma or other underlying medical

condition which could be the cause of his complaints regarding his head.

There were no contusions, bruising, swelling or other physical signs

indicating any type of injury or medical issue of any kind. However, there

was decreased range of motion in his right shoulder. As with his prior

exams, Mr. Brown was alert and oriented to person, place and time, exhibited

a normal gait and had equal hand pressure and facial symmetry. A true and

correct copy of the October 2, 2013 medical record is attached hereto as

Exhibit A. As a physician with over 15 years of experience in correctional

health care, I have seen numerous patients with head injuries as well as onthe-job injuries to the head and shoulders. I am well-aware of the various

examination techniques to identify underlying head injuries, which could

lead to persistent headaches and even neurological deficits. However, Mr.

6

Case 3:13-cv-00483-WHA-TFM Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 6 of 9
Brown’s examinations have not revealed any objective data or findings upon

which I can conclude that he is suffering from the after effects of any head

injury of any kind. I cannot identify any basis upon which any physician

(even a physician in a private medical clinic) would send a patient like Mr.

Brown for an MRI or CT scan of his head, neck or shoulders.

Because Mr. Brown continues to complain of shoulder weakness and

limited range of motion, I elected to seek an evaluation by an off-site

orthopedic specialist. Upon referral to this orthopedic specialist, any

additional care with respect to Mr. Brown’s shoulders will be at the

recommendation of the off-site orthopedic specialist. Because of existing

security protocols, I am not authorized to disclose the date or time of any

appointment for any off-site medical services provided to any inmate.

Therefore, I cannot state the date upon which Mr. Brown may be given an

appointment.

As stated previously, there is no medical evidence of any kind to

support the allegations made by Mr. Brown. I along with the other members

of the medical staff have not neglected him in any way when he voiced any

complaints or requested any medical attention. We have responded to every

complaint raised by Mr. Brown with a thorough and meaningful evaluation

of his condition and his complaints. We have provided him medication to

alleviate the discomfort he has reported to us. We have not at any time

deliberately ignored any medical complaints or request made by Mr. Brown.

I can state to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that I and the members

of the medical staff have provided Mr. Brown with all of the necessary

medical attention, care and treatment which he required and will continue to

do so during the term of his incarceration.

Defendants’ Attachment 1 to the Response to Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Preliminary

Injunction - Doc. No. 33-1 at 1-3. The synopsis of treatment provided to Brown as detailed

in Dr. Crocker’s affidavits is confirmed by the medical records attached to the responses.

Defendants’ Attachment 2 to the Response to Plaintiff’s Initial Motion for Preliminary

Injunction - Doc. No. 24-2 at 1-6; Defendants’ Exhibit A to the Response to Plaintiff’s Second

Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Doc. No. 33-1 at 5.

7

Case 3:13-cv-00483-WHA-TFM Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 7 of 9
Turning to the first prerequisite for issuance of preliminary injunctive relief, the

court finds that Brown has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits of his claims. Brown also failsto demonstrate a substantial threat that he will suffer

the requisite irreparable injury absent issuance of a preliminary injunction. The third

factor, balancing potential harm to the parties, weighs more heavily in favor of the

defendants as issuance of the requested injunction would adversely impact the ability of

health care personnel to provide medical treatment to the plaintiff in accordance with their

professional judgment. Finally, the public interest element of the equation is a neutral

factor at this juncture. Thus, Brown has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the

existence of each prerequisite necessary to warrant issuance of a preliminary injunction.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The motions for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff on September 26,

2013 (Doc. No. 28) and October 10, 2013 (Doc. No. 34) be DENIED.

2. This case be referred back the undersigned for additional proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before November 22, 2013 the parties may file objections to

the Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the

Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be

8

Case 3:13-cv-00483-WHA-TFM Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 8 of 9
considered by the District Court. The parties are further advised that this Recommendation

is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written

objections to the proposed findings in the Recommendation shall bar the party from a de

novo determination by the District Court of issues addressed in the Recommendation and

shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or

adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.,

th

667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir.

th th

1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit

issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 7th day of November, 2013.

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

Case 3:13-cv-00483-WHA-TFM Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 9 of 9