# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 21 , 20 2 1 * Decided January 2 2 , 20 2 1

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK
, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE
, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON
, Circuit Judge

No. 19

- 2 57 6

RICKY BELL
, Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v

.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, I NC ., and RALPH JOHNN IE

. Defendan t s

- Appellee s

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

.

No. 3:17

- cv

- 01301

- J P G

- RJD

J. Phil Gilbert
, Judge

.

O R D E R
Ricky Bell , an Illinois inmate, broke one of his teeth
, and the prison’s sole dentist
, who had a short, scheduled absence, extracted it a week later , immediately upon his
ret urn . Bell sued the dentis t and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the prison’s medical care provider , alleging that the one

- week delay violated the Eighth Amendment. The district
court entered summary judgment for the defendants. Because no jury could conclude

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because th e briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P

. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 19

- 2576 Page 2

that the dentist knew about but ignored a medical condition that required a faster respo n se , and because Wexford was n ot responsible for the absence of a substitute provider during dentist’s scheduled absence, we affirm the judgment.

On a Saturday in June 2017, while incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center in Illinois, Bell bit into ice and broke a t oo th in hal f. Bell’s broken tooth was part of a long history of dental issues : He suffers from periodontal disease (chronic gum infection that can lead to tooth loss ) , and he has no teeth on one side of his mouth. Bell sought help right away
, submit t ing a request for dental treatment at the prison’s medical center

. He wrote that he ha d a “ painful tooth that has broken off ” and ask ed to have “that tooth

... extracted as soon as possible

. ”

T he Illinois Department of Correction s has a policy of closing the dental unit on weekends without putting any dentist on call for emergencies . As a result, t he prison’s sole dentist, Dr. Ralph Johnnie, did not receive Bell’s request until the following Monday , two days after B e ll broke his tooth

. (Incidentally, on that Monday, Bell visited the commissary and bought candies and pe rsonal items, but not any over

- the

- counter pain medicine.) T he prison had scheduled Dr. Johnnie to be off work for the rest of the week and had not arranged for an other dentist to be on call during his ab s ence. Thus, the soonest that Dr. Johnnie could extr act the tooth was the following Monday

— his first day back at the prison

. H e scheduled the extraction for then.

U naware of Dr. Johnnie’s absence , Bell sought a prompt response to his request for treatment. On Tuesday, the first day of Dr. Johnnie ’s absence, Bell had received no response to his first request for treatment, so he submitted a nother . This time he stated his condition in detail . He said he had been “in p ain for three days now” ; the broken tooth made eating difficult , food was getting caught in the cavity of his broken tooth, and he needed an “ emergency ” extraction. Dr. Johnnie did not receive th is request during his scheduled absence. B ell also tells us that the broken tooth had exposed a nerve, and
, a s he a waited a response during this week, he had difficulty sleeping ( because of pai n ) , eating ( because his only teeth were on the side of his mouth with the broken tooth ) , and drink ing water or brush ing his teeth ( because cold water was painful

near the exposed nerve )

. The following Monday
, as scheduled
, Dr. Johnnie returned and successfully extracted what remained of Bell’s broken tooth

.

Bell sued Dr. Johnnie and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the prison’s medical care provider. He alleged that Dr. Johnnie’s delay in treating his tooth
, and the pain from that delay, violated the Eighth Amendment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, he alleged,No. 19

- 2576 Page 3

W exford added to the un constitutional delay in treatment by allowing a policy in which the dental unit was closed at times with no contingency plan for emergenc y staffing

.

T he district court grant ed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment

. It ruled that no reasonable jury could find that Bell ’s condition was serious because, if it
were, Bell w ould have bought over

- the

- counter pain medic ine at the commissary (when he visited the Monday after breaking his tooth)
, but he did not. Having so concluded
, t he court did not decide the alternative ground that the parties litigated

— whether a jury could find that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the condition

. On appeal, Bell primarily challenges the entry of summary judgment for Dr. Johnnie. To get past summary judgment, Bell had to furnish evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he suffered from a serious medical condition and Dr. Johnnie was deliberately indifferent to it

. Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Petties v. Carter , 836 F.3d 722, 728 ( 7th Cir

. 2016) (en banc)

. Construing the record in Bell’s favor, as we must a t this stage, see Berry v. Peterman , 604 F.3d 435, 438 (7th Cir. 2010) , we agree with him that he presented sufficient evidence of a n objectively serious medical need : Along w ith p eriodontal disease
, Bell had a broken tooth and exposed nerve caus ing excruciating pain tha t required prompt extraction or he would face a loss of eating, sleeping, drinking, and oral hygiene. See Berry , 604 F.3d at 4 38 , 4 40 ( reasoning that tooth decay , which left plaintiff unable to eat or brush teeth due to pain, constituted serious medical condition); Board v. Farnham
, 394 F.3d 469, 480 (7th Cir. 2005) (collecting cases where dental pain accompanied by harm constitute d serious medical need)

. The district court ’s view that Bell was not in serious pain because he d id not buy over

- the

- counter pain medication

— a view the defendants echo on appeal

— reinforces a fact ual dispute rather than erases it. Although a jury might i nfer that Bell did not buy pain relievers because he was not in pain, it might also reasonably find that Bell did not do so because he thought that he should not self

- medicate a serious dental condition until he first saw a dentist

.

But even if Bell had a serious dental condition, a remand is not needed . T he presence of a serious medica l condition is not enough to warrant a trial against Dr. Johnnie unless B ell also furnish e d evidence that the dentist was deliberate ly indifferent to that condition

. See Olson v. Morgan , 750 F.3d 708, 713

– 14 (7th Cir. 2014) ( affirming grant of summary judgment in defendant’s favor where plaintiff’s broken tooth may have been a serious medical need , but defendant did not know about it ). The district court never reached this question, but we can affirm on any basis that, as here, isNo. 19

- 2576 Page 4

supported by t he record and was adequately presented in the district court where Bell had an opportunity to contest it. Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, In c. , 940 F.3d 954, 963

– 64 (7th Cir. 2019)

.

N o reasonable jury could conclude that Dr. Johnnie knew about but recklessly ignored Bell ’s condition. Farmer , 511 U.S. at 837. After receiving Bell’s initial request for treatment, all that Dr. Johnnie knew from Bell was that a “ painful tooth

... had broken off” and that he wanted an extraction “as soon as possible

. ” Dr. Johnnie fulfilled Bell’s request : H e schedul ed an extraction for one week later

— the first day he returned to the prison

. Bell has not presented any medical evidence suggest ing that ext ractions of a broken tooth must happen faster. And no thing in Bell’s f irst request would have tipped off Dr. Johnnie that he would be reckless if he did not ask the prison to act faster

. Bell did not , for example, state that his broken tooth had exposed a nerve ; that the pain was so severe that it affected his sleep ing , eat ing , drink ing, or hygiene ; or that available,

over

- the

- counter pain relievers were insufficient

. See Olson , 750 F.3d at 713

– 14 (affirming summary judgment for dentist

- defendant where he would not have interpreted a request for aspirin as indicating a serious medical condition). Bell’s second request, which asserted some of these matters, might have put a dentist on notice of Bell’s need for something more urgent than a week

- out a ppointment to ease his pain

. B ut the undisputed fact is that Dr. Johnnie did not see that request until he returned from his scheduled time off, the same day that he performed the extraction

. Bell next challenges the entry of summary judgment for Wexford. He argues that Wexford maintains a policy of closing the dental unit every weekend and not putting a dentist on call to handle emergencies during closures. The prob lem with this claim is that
, based on t he undisputed facts
, the policy that Bell challenges is maintained by the policymakers at Illinois Department of Corrections

— not Wexford. Bell points to no Wexford policy that contributed to a delay in his treatment . T hus
, the entry of summary judgment for Wexford was proper. S ee S hields v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr.
, 746 F.3d 782, 789 ( 7th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED