United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Argued December 17, 2019 

Decided January 6, 2020 

Before 

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge 

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge 

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 19-1876 

DALE D. DRINKWATER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CHARLES LARSON, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. 

No. 16-cv-134-wmc 

William M. Conley, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Dale Drinkwater, a former Wisconsin prisoner, has a history of bilateral hip 

arthroplasty and chronic hip pain. While he was incarcerated, prison doctors disagreed 

over his need for surgery on one hip and denied his requests for outside consultations. 

After he was released, he sued six prison medical professionals for deliberate 

indifference toward his need for hip surgery. The district court granted the defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment. On appeal Drinkwater pursues his deliberateindifference claims against only two prison doctors—Drs. David Burnett and Charles 

Larson. Because Drinkwater has not adduced evidence for a reasonable jury to find that 

either was indifferent to his serious medical needs, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 19-1876 Page 2 

I. Background 

Drinkwater’s claims focus on events that occurred in 2010 and 2011, but his 

earlier medical treatment provides context. Now in his mid-50s, Drinkwater had both 

hips replaced in the early 1990s. In August 2009 he had an appointment with an 

orthopedic surgeon, who noted significant wear to Drinkwater’s left hip, advised that 

he might need revision surgery, and recommended that he see a hip specialist.1 Two 

months later he began his imprisonment at Fox Lake Correctional Institution. 

That December Drinkwater expressed concerns about possible pelvic 

discontinuity (a distinct form of bone loss that is typically a chronic condition in failed 

total hip replacements) to Dr. Richard Illgen, a second orthopedic physician from the 

University of Wisconsin. Dr. Illgen noted that while Drinkwater would need to undergo 

revision surgery at some point in the future, he did not believe that surgery was 

appropriate at the time because he saw no evidence of pelvic discontinuity, mechanical 

failure, or hip dislocation. Dissatisfied with Dr. Illgen’s diagnosis and reluctance to 

recommend surgery, Drinkwater refused to go to his follow-up appointment in 

February. 

In May 2010 Drinkwater slipped in the prison shower and injured his hip. He 

was transported to a nearby emergency room where x-rays revealed a broken screw in 

his hip but otherwise no sign of a fracture. The emergency-room doctor diagnosed a left 

hip contusion and recommended that Drinkwater follow up with Dr. Illgen. The doctor 

recorded his conversation with Drinkwater, highlighting Drinkwater’s express refusal 

to see any University of Wisconsin orthopedic surgeon. Drinkwater was returned to the 

prison and placed on pain management. 

Over the next few months, Drinkwater was examined numerous times by 

Dr. Charles Larson, a prison physician. At an appointment in June, Drinkwater told 

Dr. Larson that he disagreed with Dr. Illgen’s plan of care and wanted to have surgery 

at a facility other than the University of Wisconsin. Dr. Larson agreed to request 

permission for Drinkwater to be sent to Mayo Clinic or Froedtert Hospital for a second 

opinion and possible surgery. (The prison has a contract with the University of 

Wisconsin to provide medical services, so prisoners are generally allowed to seek care 

at Mayo or Froedtert only if a University of Wisconsin doctor believes that he is not 

 

1 Revision surgery is performed to repair an artificial hip that has deteriorated 

over time due to normal wear and tear. 
No. 19-1876 Page 3 

capable of performing surgery.) On the request form, Dr. Larson noted Dr. Illgen’s 

opinion that surgery was premature and Drinkwater’s belief that a delay in surgery 

would harm his long-term outcome, but Dr. Larson did not opine on the condition of 

Drinkwater’s hip. Dr. David Burnett, the prison doctor responsible for reviewing 

prisoner requests for outside medical treatment, denied the request without 

explanation. 

 

After learning that his request to see a Mayo or Froedtert physician was denied, 

Drinkwater asked Dr. Larson to correct his prison medical records. Apparently 

Drinkwater believed that his medical records reflected his refusal to see any University 

of Wisconsin doctor. He wanted his records corrected to reflect that he was refusing 

treatment from only Dr. Illgen. Dr. Larson denied Drinkwater’s request, deeming 

Drinkwater’s records accurate and complete. 

Dr. Larson saw Drinkwater in September 2010, January 2011, and June 2011 for 

chronic pain management. At the first two appointments, Drinkwater did not report 

any changes in his hip functionality or an increase in pain. At the last appointment, 

Drinkwater refused to let Dr. Larson examine him and voiced frustration with the care 

that he was receiving. Drinkwater was released from prison in September 2011. 

Five years later, Drinkwater sued Drs. Larson and Burnett (and four other 

medical professionals, whom Drinkwater has dropped from the case) for showing 

deliberate indifference toward his serious medical needs by not scheduling him for hip 

surgery after his fall in the shower. The defendants moved for summary judgment, 

which the district court granted. Regarding Dr. Larson, the judge concluded that no 

reasonable inference of deliberate indifference could be made because he did not 

deviate from an accepted standard of care when he provided Drinkwater with medical 

treatment and tried to accommodate Drinkwater’s only documented request for referral 

to an outside specialist. Turning to Dr. Burnett, the judge found that the evidence 

established that the doctor reasonably relied on Dr. Illgen’s opinion that surgery was 

unwarranted at the time, so a reasonable jury could not find that he acted with 

deliberate indifference when denying Drinkwater’s request to receive a surgical 

consultation from the Mayo Clinic or Froedtert Hospital. 

II. Discussion 

To survive summary judgment Drinkwater needed to present evidence allowing 

a reasonable jury to conclude that he suffered from an objectively serious medical 
No. 19-1876 Page 4 

condition and that Drs. Larson and Burnett knew of and deliberately disregarded a 

substantial risk of harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The parties do 

not dispute that Drinkwater’s hip condition was objectively serious. Instead, 

Drinkwater seeks to show that Drs. Larson and Burnett knew that their decisions would 

effectively prevent him from receiving any medical care. In support he points to 

Dr. Burnett’s denial of his request to be seen by an outside specialist from Mayo or 

Froedtert, coupled with Dr. Larson’s refusal to amend his medical records to reflect that 

he did not refuse treatment from all University of Wisconsin doctors. 

Following Drinkwater’s lead, we first turn to Dr. Burnett. Drinkwater contends 

that Dr. Burnett denied his request to see an outside specialist based only on the 

contract for medical services entered with the University of Wisconsin. Because no 

medical judgment was involved, he argues, this denial necessarily constitutes deliberate 

indifference. But no reasonable jury could find that Dr. Burnett was deliberately 

indifferent. When prison doctors act as administrators instead of treating physicians, as 

Dr. Burnett did, they are entitled to rely on the judgment of the doctors who are treating 

the inmate. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 478–79 (7th Cir. 2017). Drinkwater asked to be 

seen at a facility outside the University of Wisconsin system because he disagreed with 

Dr. Illgen’s diagnosis, but he presented no evidence that Dr. Burnett knew that 

Dr. Illgen’s medical opinions were incorrect (if that were even the case); that treatment 

from another University of Wisconsin physician could not have sufficiently addressed 

his medical needs; or that refusing Drinkwater’s request to schedule an appointment at 

Mayo or Froedtert would cause Drinkwater not to receive any surgical intervention (if 

even needed). “Disagreement between a prisoner and his doctor, or even between two 

medical professionals, about the proper course of treatment generally is insufficient, by 

itself, to establish an Eighth Amendment violation.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409 

(7th Cir. 2014). Further, prison inmates are not entitled to demand specific care. 

See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 754 (7th Cir. 2011). No reasonable jury could 

conclude that Dr. Burnett was deliberately indifferent when denying Drinkwater’s 

request. 

As for Dr. Larson, Drinkwater argues that the doctor acted with deliberate 

indifference by refusing to amend his medical records to correct his purported refusal to 

be seen by a University of Wisconsin physician. According to Drinkwater, Dr. Larson 

must have known that his refusal would effectively preclude him from being seen by 

any physician—whether from Mayo, Froedtert, or the University of Wisconsin. 
No. 19-1876 Page 5 

A reasonable jury could not conclude that Dr. Larson was deliberately 

indifferent. To be liable, Dr. Larson must have personally caused Drinkwater not to 

receive treatment. See Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954, 964–65 

(7th Cir. 2019); Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 805, 810 (7th Cir. 2005). But 

Dr. Larson’s decision not to amend Drinkwater’s medical records—the utility of which 

is unclear and, in any event, was deemed by the doctor to be unnecessary—did not 

deprive Drinkwater of treatment. After Drinkwater’s request to see a specialist from 

Mayo or Froedtert was denied, he apparently never again asked for an appointment 

with an outside specialist (or at least Dr. Larson never denied such a request). If 

Drinkwater made no such request, Dr. Larson would have no reason to schedule an 

appointment for him to see a specialist. There simply is no evidence linking 

Dr. Larson’s refusal to amend Drinkwater’s medical records with Drinkwater not 

receiving surgery or further outside evaluation. See Walker, 940 F.3d at 965–66. A 

reasonable jury, therefore, could not find that Dr. Larson was deliberately indifferent by 

rejecting Drinkwater’s request to amend his records. 

AFFIRMED