Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02124/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02124-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Baker
Appellee
James Bennett
Appellant
Jewel Cofield
Appellee
Elizabeth Conley
Appellee
Correctional Medical Services
Appellee
Haas
Appellee
Rex Hardman
Appellee
Gerald Jacobsen
Appellee
Richard H. Miles
Appellee
Stormi Moeller
Appellee
Martha R. Nolt
Appellee
Sally Powers
Appellee
Sands
Appellee
Pamala S. Swartz
Appellee
John J. Treu
Appellee
Leon Vickers
Appellee
Edith Vogel
Appellee
Nanette M. Wavre
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2124

___________________________

James Bennett

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Richard H. Miles, President, CMS; Sally Powers, Vice President, CMS; Leon

Vickers, Health Administrator; Stormi Moeller, Director of Nursing, JCCC, CMS;

Gerald Jacobsen, Regional Manager, CMS; Jewel Cofield, Official Regional

Administrator; Elizabeth Conley, D.O. Regional Medical Director, CMS; John J.

Treu, General Counsel, CMS; Dr. Haas, CMS; Dr. Sands; Dr. Rex Hardman; Edith

Vogel, Nurse, CMS; Correctional Medical Services; Dr. Thomas Baker, M.D.,

Associate Medical Director, CMS; Pamala S. Swartz; Nanette M. Wavre; Martha

R. Nolt

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

____________

 Submitted: January 6, 2015

Filed: February 27, 2015 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 14-2124 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2015 Entry ID: 4248810 
Inmate James Bennett appeals following the district court’s adverse grant of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm in part, reverse in part,

and remand for further proceedings. Bennett brought the instant suit in July 2010. In

his amended complaint, he sought damages and injunctive relief against Correctional

Medical Services (CMS); Drs. Thomas Baker, Rex Hardman, and Harry Haas; Nurse

Edith Vogel; and Health Services Administrator (HSA) Leon Vickers.1

 Claiming

Eighth Amendment violations, he alleged that he had reported serious symptoms from

2005 through 2007, but it took two years for defendants to make a correct diagnosis

of the cause for his symptoms, and that he had suffered permanent nerve damage

despite undergoing surgery.

We find no basis for reversing most of the orders Bennett challenges on appeal. 

Specifically, we conclude the district court did not err in granting summary judgment

to Nurse Vogel and HSA Vickers because Bennett did not adequately counter their

supporting evidence. See Barber v. C1Truck Driver Training, LLC, 656 F.3d 782,

791 (8th Cir. 2011) (nonmovant must set forth specific facts sufficient to raise genuine

issue for trial, and may not rely upon mere denials or allegations). We also conclude

the district court did not err in denying his motion to compel production of documents,

see Kilpatrick v. King, 499 F.3d 759, 766 (8th Cir. 2007) (reviewing for gross abuse

of discretion denial of motion to compel), or in denying without prejudice his motions

for counsel, see Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (there

is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in civil cases; listing relevant criteria),

although we ask the district court to reconsider on remand whether appointment of

1

Bennett does not sufficiently raise on appeal the district court’s preservice

dismissal of defendants Richard Miles, Sally Powers, Stormi Moeller, Gerald

Jacobsen, Jewel Cofield, Dr. Elizabeth Conley, John Treu, Dr. Sands, Pamala Swartz,

and Martha Nolt, see Hess v. Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013); and he

does not mention on appeal defendant Nanette Wavre, who was never served, see

Young v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Co., 864 F.2d 81, 83 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)

(where only unserved defendant remains in action, order disposing of claims against

served defendants is final appealable order).

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2124 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2015 Entry ID: 4248810 
counsel is warranted on the remaining claims. Further, contrary to Bennett’s

suggestion on appeal, he did not move for appointment of a medical expert, but

merely mentioned his alleged need for an expert in his last motion for counsel.

We conclude, however, that questions of fact remained on Bennett’s deliberate

indifference claims against Drs. Haas, Baker, and Hardman arising from his cervical

spondylitic myelopathy.2

 See Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014)

(reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment, viewing evidence in light most

favorable to nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor);

Wise v. Lappin, 674 F.3d 939, 941 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (determinations at

summary judgment stage may not be based on credibility findings or weighing of

evidence). First, there were conflicts between the physicians’ evidence–their

attestations and declarations, and the medical record entries they offered in support–

and Bennett’s attestations regarding his symptoms and complaints when he saw the

physicians; and those conflicts were sufficient to raise questions of fact as to whether

the physicians’ actions or failures to act constituted deliberate indifference. See

Fourte v. Faulkner County, Ark., 746 F.3d 384, 387 (8th Cir. 2014) (inmate must

show that he suffered from objectively serious medical need defendants knew of but

disregarded; deliberate indifference may be found where medical care is so

inappropriate as to show intentional maltreatment). Second, the assessments and

recommendations of outside orthopedist John Spears after Bennett’s initial visit in

November 2007 indicated that the pressure on Bennett’s cervical spinal cord needed

immediate attention to prevent further and permanent damage, suggesting that the

pressure he had been experiencing had already caused damage; and Dr. Spears’s

January 2010 note describing Bennett’s permanent neurological impairments two

2

Cervical spondylitic myelopathy is pressure on the spinal cord itself from

degenerative changes, which can keep the brain from receiving sensory information

or transmitting information to the voluntary muscles. Symptoms include clumsiness

and difficulties ambulating. See Julia Barrett, Cervical Spondylosis, in 2 The Gale

Encyclopedia of Medicine 923-24 (Laurie J. Fundukian et al., eds., 4th ed. 2011).

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2124 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2015 Entry ID: 4248810 
years after undergoing cervical surgery supported Bennett’s allegation that he suffered

detrimental effects from the delay in diagnostic testing and the outside consultation. 

See Moots v Lombardi, 453 F.3d 1020, 1023 (8th Cir. 2006) (inmate complaining of

delay in treatment must offer verifying medical evidence showing that delay had

detrimental effect). Third, certain documents in the record indicated that Bennett’s

deteriorating condition was obvious to laypersons or could have been diagnosed

earlier: declarations from three other inmates described his deteriorating condition

since 2005; a medical record entry supported his verified allegations that in November

2006 prison staff informed medical staff that Bennett had been moved to a bottom

bunk on the bottom walk and then to a handicapped cell, and also showed that prison

staff had requested a medical assessment of Bennett’s need for accommodations; and

a nurse practitioner’s notation documenting abnormal findings when she saw Bennett

a few weeks after he saw Dr. Baker in October 2007 casts doubt on the declarations

or attestations of the doctors that Bennett’s condition was not diagnosable earlier. See

Vaughn v. Gray, 557 F.3d 904, 909 (8th Cir. 2009) (factfinder may determine that

defendant deliberately disregarded serious medical need of which he was actually

aware from very fact that medical need was obvious); Hartsfield v. Colburn, 371 F.3d

454, 457 (8th Cir. 2004) (where conditions inmate described would have been obvious

to layperson, there was no need for inmate to submit verifying medical evidence to

show detrimental effects of alleged delay in treatment); see also Wise, 674 F.3d at 941

(court must accept as true facts stated in prisoner affidavits). We note that while the

district court found, in granting summary judgment, that Bennett had misstated his

medical condition, Bennett offered a reasonable explanation below that, as a

layperson, he did not fully understand Dr. Spears’s explanation of his spinal condition,

and the record showed that at one point multiple sclerosis was considered as a possible

diagnosis.

Finally, while we agree with the district court that Bennett did not state a claim

against CMS in his complaint, see Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 540-41 (8th Cir.

2014) (reviewing de novo 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal); Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-2124 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/27/2015 Entry ID: 4248810 
& Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975-76 (8th Cir. 1993) (corporate liability under § 1983),

because Bennett’s added allegations in a supplement he offered with a motion for

reconsideration appear sufficient to state a claim against CMS, cf. Burke v. N. D.

Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1044 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)

(allegations against corporation providing prison medical care that its hepatitis C

treatment protocol and its doctors’ complicity with prison medical director’s actions

were damaging to inmate’s health stated § 1983 claim), we ask the district court on

remand to revisit its ruling on Bennett’s motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the

physician defendants, and in all other respects we affirm. We remand the case for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

-5-

Appellate Case: 14-2124 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/27/2015 Entry ID: 4248810