United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 21, 2015*

Decided April 22, 2015

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 14‐3050

DENNIS SPEROW,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

VIPIN SHAH, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 3:12‐CV‐851‐NJR‐DGW

Nancy J. Rosenstengel,

Judge.

O R D E R

Dennis Sperow, an Illinois inmate, appeals from the grant of summary judgment

against him in this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that two prison doctors were   

deliberately indifferent in failing to treat both his Hepatitis C and his inguinal hernia.

Because Sperow furnished no evidence suggesting that the doctors provided

constitutionally inadequate treatment, we affirm.   

                                                 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 14‐3050    Page 2

Upon arriving at Pickneyville Correctional Center in 2007, Sperow had type 1A

Hepatitis C. Because of this condition, his blood was repeatedly tested over the

following years. In 2011 he began being treated by Dr. Dina Paul, a physician employed

by Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and also the prison’s hepatitis coordinator. At the first

examination, Dr. Paul noted that Sperow had elevated liver enzymes and low blood

platelets. Because pharmacological treatment is rigorous and can be difficult for patients

to tolerate, Dr. Paul decided to monitor Sperow’s liver blood tests, and she authorized

vaccinations for Hepatitis A and B. Several months later Sperow was seen by Dr. Vipin

Shah, also a physician employed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc., who agreed with Dr.

Paul’s decision to monitor Sperow’s blood work. In early 2012 Sperow saw Dr. Paul

again and complained of weakness, ear and eye pain, an upper respiratory infection,

nausea, and confusion. Sperow’s liver enzymes were again elevated and Dr. Paul again

did not advise pharmacological treatment, because of the severe side effects and the

need to adhere strictly to the treatment regimen. Because Sperow showed signs of

confusion, which can be related to liver function, Dr. Paul had further labs drawn.

Sperow’s ammonia levels were elevated; elevated ammonia levels together with

cirrhosis are consistent with hepatic encephalopathy, a buildup of toxins in the blood

affecting brain function. Dr. Shah treated this condition with a medication called

Lactulose. Several months later Dr. Paul examined Sperow because of his complaints of

multiple physical ailments and confusion; Sperow’s liver enzymes and ammonia levels

were elevated, and he again had a low platelet count. Dr. Paul continued to believe that

Sperow was still not a good candidate for pharmacological treatment because his health

was unstable, he did not understand his diagnosis, and his repeated refusal to seek

appointments in the health care unit suggested that he could not adhere to a strict

treatment regimen. Dr. Paul recommended continued monitoring of his condition.

   

Sperow’s other serious condition was an inguinal hernia that developed in 2009.

He was seen two days later, and doctors determined that the hernia would disappear or

flatten if he laid down. When he was next seen several months later, he told a nurse that

he had no pain from the hernia when he laid down, and at subsequent follow‐up visits

his hernia was found to be easily reducible by laying down. By late 2011 Sperow was

being seen by Dr. Shah, who prescribed an over‐the‐counter pain medication and

advised Sperow to wear a truss—a supportive undergarment belt that relieves

discomfort by keeping the hernia in place. Dr. Shah continued to monitor Sperow’s

hernia through June 2012, examining him for tenderness that might indicate intestinal

strangulation, swelling, or infection.
No. 14‐3050    Page 3

Sperow brought this suit under the Eighth Amendment, asserting that Dr. Paul

failed to treat his hepatitis by not recommending the pharmacological treatment and that

Dr. Shah should have recommended surgery to repair his hernia. Adopting the report

and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district judge granted both doctors

summary judgment. The district judge found that Drs. Shah and Paul provided

reasonable care and that Sperow was not entitled to demand the specific care of his

choice. And because the care Sperow received was reasonable, the judge dismissed

Louis Shicker, in his capacity as Medical Director for the Illinois Department of

Corrections, because he no longer was a potentially necessary party to the action.   

On appeal Sperow challenges the grant of summary judgment for Dr. Paul, who,

he maintains, acted with deliberate indifference by refusing pharmacological treatment.

The district court, however, correctly found that Dr. Paul used her medical judgment in

discounting Sperow as a candidate for such treatment. Treatment decisions are entitled

to deference unless they so depart from professional standards as to call into question

whether the doctor was exercising professional judgment. See Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d

403, 409, 412 (7th Cir. 2014); Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 894–95 (7th Cir. 2008). Sperow

offered no evidence to show that Dr. Paul acted without exercising her medical

judgment in determining that he was not a good candidate for pharmacological

treatment.   

Sperow also challenges the grant of summary judgment for Dr. Shah on the

grounds that, in his view, surgery is the only proper way to treat a hernia. But Sperow is

not entitled to demand the specific treatment of his choice, as the district judge

explained. See Pyles, 771 F.3d at 409, 412; Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1013 (7th Cir.

2006). Nor can Sperow point to evidence of deliberate indifference in his care: Dr. Shah

regularly monitored his hernia for signs of deterioration and, after determining the

hernia was easily reducible, prescribed pain medication as well as a truss. Sperow may

have preferred surgery but he introduced no evidence to question Dr. Shah’s medical

judgment that pain relief, a truss, and continued monitoring were sufficient measures to

treat his condition.   

   

Sperow does not challenge the dismissal of Dr. Louis Shicker from the action.   

We have reviewed Sperow’s remaining contentions and conclude that none has merit.

AFFIRMED.