# 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,
J udge

.

O R D E R

Dale Drinkwater, a former Wisconsin pr isoner, 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 deni ed 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 appe al 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 medi cal needs, we affirm the district court’s judgment. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1No. 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 Augu st 2009 he had an a ppointment with an orthopedic surgeon, who noted significant we ar 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 th at 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 fut ure, he did not believe that surgery was appropriate at the time because he saw no ev idence 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 pr ison 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 Drinkwat er 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 pr isoners 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 re quest form, Dr. Larson noted Dr. Illgen’s opinion that surgery was premature and Drin kwater’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 Sept ember 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 in crease in pain. At the last appointment,

Drinkwater refused to let Dr. Larson examin e 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 me dical 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. Regardin g Dr. Larson, the judge concluded that no

reasonable inference of deliberate indiffe rence 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 Drinkwat er’s only documented request for referral to an outside specialist. Turning to Dr. Bu rnett, the judge found that the evidence established that the doctor reasonably relie d on Dr. Illgen’s opinion that surgery was unwarranted at the time, so a reasonable ju ry could not find that he acted with deliberate indifference when denying Drinkw ater’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 s uffered from an objectively serious medicalNo. 19-1876 Page 4

condition and that Drs. Larson and Burn ett 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 condit ion 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 s een 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, th is denial necessarily constitutes deliberate indifference. But no reasonable jury coul d find that Dr. Burnett was deliberately indifferent. When prison doctors act as admini strators 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 (i f that were even the case); that treatment from another University of Wisconsin physic ian could not have sufficiently addressed his medical needs; or that refusing Drinkwat er’s request to schedule an appointment at Mayo or Froedtert would cause Drinkwater no t to receive any surgical intervention (if even needed). “Disagreement between a pris oner 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 deliberatel y indifferent when denying Drinkwater’s
request.

As for Dr. Larson, Drinkwater argues th at 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 physic ian. According to Drinkwater, Dr. Larson

must have known that his refusal would effe ctively 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 Drinkw ater’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 th at Dr. Larson was deliberately indifferent by rejecting Drinkwater’s request to amend his records.

AFFIRMED