IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Donzell Thomas

 Plaintiff, 

)

)

)

)

)

v. ) No. 20 C 4564

Samuel Chmell, et al. 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Donzell Thomas has been serving a life sentence at the 

Illinois Department of Corrections since 2006. He suffers from a 

number of physical ailments, including osteoarthritis and 

degenerative joint disease, which have caused him significant pain 

over the years of his incarceration. Mr. Thomas is currently housed 

at Stateville Correctional Center, where he claims that healthcare 

providers have been deliberately indifferent to his serious 

medical conditions and have provided constitutionally inadequate 

medical care, including in retaliation for grievances he filed

about that care. This is one of several lawsuits Mr. Thomas has 

brought to vindicate his Eighth Amendment right to be free from 

prison conditions that cause “the wanton and unnecessary 

infliction of pain,” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981), and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:3224
2

his First Amendment right to file non-frivolous grievances, see 

Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 783 (7th Cir. 2015).1

In November of 2021, I dismissed some of the claims and 

defendants in this case, see ECF 57, but I determined that Mr. 

Thomas was entitled to discovery to try and prove his claim against 

Wexford Health Sources, Inc., under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. 

of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and his claims against 

Dr. Marlene Henze, a physician employed by Wexford and the medical 

director at Stateville, under the Eighth and First Amendments. 

Both of these defendants have now moved for summary judgment. I

grant their motions for the following reasons.

I.

One of Mr. Thomas’s earlier cases, Thomas v. Gomez, No. 17-

cv-5936 (N.D. Ill.), provides relevant background to the claims he 

asserts here. In Gomez, which was likewise resolved at summary 

judgment, Mr. Thomas claimed that since at least March of 2015, he

suffered from pain, swelling, and warmth in his left leg, and 

“popping” in his left knee, as a result of osteoarthritis and 

degenerative joint disease. See Thomas v. Gomez, 659 F. Supp. 3d 

944, 948-49 (N.D. Ill. 2023). Numerous times between March of 2015 

1 Thomas v. Pfister, No. 18-cv-4311 (N.D. Ill.), and Thomas v. 

Gomez, No. 17-cv-5936 (N.D. Ill.), both of which were before me, 

similarly challenged the conduct of certain individuals and 

entities involved in Mr. Thomas’s medical care during his custody. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:3225
3

and December of 2017, Mr. Thomas consulted medical providers who 

are not named in the present action to address these and other

issues. During that time, he was prescribed ice, Tylenol, the use 

of a crutch, and a cortisone injection for his leg and knee. Id. 

at 949. When this treatment did not alleviate his symptoms, Mr. 

Thomas received an X-ray, an MRI, and physical therapy. Id. at 

949-950. In addition, he was prescribed “twelve different 

medications,” knee sleeves, and topical creams, and when these did 

not resolve his symptoms, he was referred to an orthopedic surgeon. 

Id. at 950, 951. In 2016, Mr. Thomas was referred for knee surgery. 

Wexford’s L.R. 56.1 Stmt., ECF 114 at ¶ 7. Dr. Samuel Chmell, an 

orthopedic surgeon at the University of Illinois at Chicago 

Hospital (“UIC”), explained to Mr. Thomas that he would feel 

discomfort after the procedure, and that in up to 20% of cases, 

patients continue to experience pain for medically inexplicable 

reasons. Id. at ¶ 8. Mr. Thomas underwent total knee arthroplasty

at UIC on September 24, 2019. Id. at ¶ 7,

In the present case, Mr. Thomas complains about defendants’ 

treatment of his pain and other symptoms he has experienced since 

his knee replacement surgery. Beginning the day after his surgery, 

Mr. Thomas reported to Dr. Henze that he felt severe pain in his 

left leg, which was hot and dark red, and he faults her for failing 

to examine him on that day or to prescribe antibiotics. Mr. Thomas 

continued to experience these symptoms, and he returned to UIC for 

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3226
4

follow-up on October 7, 2019, where he received x-rays. According 

to Dr. Chmell, the x-rays revealed hairline fractures that likely 

occurred during his knee surgery and would heal on their own in 

six to eight weeks. Mr. Thomas again returned to UIC for followup on November 18, 2019. His records from that day reflect that he 

presented with an increased range of motion in his knee and no 

evidence of infection; a well-aligned prosthesis with no evidence 

of hardware failure; and no fractures to his tibia or fibula. But 

because Mr. Thomas reported ongoing pain, Dr. Chmell recommended 

an MRI. Dr. Henze saw Mr. Thomas four days later, and she referred 

him for an MRI pursuant to Dr. Chmell’s recommendation. Dr. Henze 

also reviewed Mr. Thomas’s clinical findings and increased his 

doses of Tramadol and ibuprofen.

Wexford approved the MRI referral request on December 5, 2019. 

The procedure was scheduled for December 30, 2019, but was canceled 

due to Mr. Thomas’s complaints of pain. Mr. Thomas ultimately 

underwent the MRI on January 29, 2020. It revealed “multifocal 

longitudinally oriented intramedullary infarcts within the 

proximal and distal tibial diaphysis,” which Dr. Chmell considered

“odd findings.” Accordingly, he ordered additional tests and 

recommended that Mr. Thomas see another specialist for a second 

opinion. 

Back at Stateville, Dr. Henze reviewed the MRI results with 

Mr. Thomas on February 3, 2020. She expressed alarm at the finding

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:3227
5

of bone infarcts. Mr. Thomas recalls Dr. Henze saying that 

“infarcts” could cause death, blood clots, and heart attacks, and 

that she was not familiar with infarcts occurring in the bones. 

She thus made an urgent referral back to UIC to address this 

condition. Wexford’s L.R. 56.1 Stmt., ECF 114 at ¶ 21.

Dr. Henze’s urgent referral was approved, and Mr. Thomas was 

seen again at UIC on February 24, 2020. At that time, he was in no 

acute distress and had no erythema, warmth, drainage, or signs of 

infection. X-rays again showed a well-aligned prosthesis, no 

evidence of hardware failure, and no evidence of fracture. 

Wexford’s L.R. 56.1 Stmt., ECF 114 at ¶ 22. Because of his unusual 

MRI findings, Dr. Chmell referred Mr. Thomas to a bone tumor 

specialist to rule out the possibility of cancer, although Dr. 

Chmell did not think a cancer diagnosis was likely. Indeed, Dr. 

Chmell did not believe, based on the MRI, that Mr. Thomas was in 

medical danger or at risk of substantial harm. Id. at ¶ 21; see 

also Sladek Rep., ECF 133-7 at 28 (during his care and treatment 

for knee and hand/wrist pain, “Mr. Thomas was never at risk for 

substantial harm and was not in any medical danger.”)

Dr. Henze saw Mr. Thomas again on March 4 and 5, 2020. She 

ordered an additional MRI to the tibia/fibula and further follow 

up at UIC orthopedics. Dr. Henze also prescribed Tramadol and 

Neurontin for his pain and wrote permits for low bunk, low galley, 

shower daily, waist chains, ice twice per day, and slow walk. Mr. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:3228
6

Thomas was scheduled for an appointment with UIC’s bone tumor 

specialist on April 20, 2020, but by that time, Covid-19 

restrictions were in place, and UIC staff determined that Mr. 

Thomas did not meet the hospital’s criteria for an in-person visit. 

Dr. Henze and other Stateville employees followed up to request 

clarification as to why Mr. Thomas could not be seen in person. 

Dr. Chmell explained that the risk that Mr. Thomas could contract 

Covid-19 and transmit it to “a vulnerable population” warranted 

heightened precautions. There is no dispute that neither Dr. Henze 

nor Wexford had authority to influence UIC’s policies in this 

respect.

Mr. Thomas ultimately saw Dr. Yasser Farid, UIC’s bone tumor 

specialist, on December 3, 2020.2 Dr. Farid reviewed Mr. Thomas’s 

MRI and clinical findings and determined that he did not, in fact, 

have bone infarcts, and that his MRI findings were not uncommon in 

patients who had undergone total knee replacement. Farid Dep., ECF 

137-3, at 21:22-24; 23:8-14. Dr. Farid further testified—and, 

indeed, all now agree—that Mr. Thomas was not at risk of any 

serious medical harm between the time Dr. Chmell referred him to 

a bone tumor specialist and the date of his visit to Dr. Farid.

2 In the meantime, Mr. Thomas saw doctors, nurses, or physician’s 

assistants at Stateville at least six times to address his 

complaints of knee/leg pain. ECF 130 at ¶¶ 29-31.

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:3229
7

But Mr. Thomas’s health concerns did not abate. Roughly three 

weeks after Dr. Farid excluded any serious medical risk involving 

Mr. Thomas’s leg and knee, on December 23, 2020, Mr. Thomas injured 

his wrist. On January 4, 2021, he complained to Dr. Henze about 

pain in his wrist, and she ordered an x-ray of the area, which was 

taken on January 6, 2021. Dr. Henze observed what appeared to be 

a nondisplaced fracture that was already healing. She advised Mr. 

Thomas at visits on January 7 and 9 that no surgery or intervention 

other than ice was necessary. At these visits, Mr. Thomas wore a 

brace on his arm that was not medically necessary and was in fact 

harming him because it was too small and impeding his circulation. 

Accordingly, she canceled his permit for the brace. 

When Mr. Thomas again saw Dr. Henze about hand and wrist pain 

on March 26, 2021, she sent him to the emergency room. X-rays taken 

at the hospital showed no fractures in his hand or wrist. Because

his pain persisted, Dr. Henze then ordered a CT scan of Mr. 

Thomas’s hand and wrist, which was completed on June 29, 2021. The 

scan revealed tendinopathy and arthritis, for which Mr. Thomas was 

prescribed Voltaren gel and physical therapy. Dr. Henze later

referred Mr. Thomas to a hand specialist at UIC, who saw him on 

December 23, 2021, concluded that his pain was likely from 

arthritis and the presence of a carpal boss, and established a 

plan of treatment that included occupational therapy and Voltaren 

gel. ECF 120-8 at 2172. Mr. Thomas received this therapy at 

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:3230
8

Stateville until he was discharged with a home exercise program in 

July of 2022. In total, Mr. Thomas was referred to and seen by 

providers outside of Stateville at least twenty-nine times over 

the period in question. 

Dr. Eduard Sladek, an orthopedic surgeon who performs roughly 

100 knee replacement surgeries every year, reviewed Mr. Thomas’s 

medical records and the depositions of his treating physicians and 

provided an expert report in support of defendants’ motions. Dr. 

Sladek found “no evidence in the record that Mr. Thomas was ever 

refused, denied, or had any delay in the medically necessary care, 

[or] that there was any delay in his accurate diagnosis or 

appropriate treatment.” Sladek Rep., ECF 133-7 at 28. Dr. Sladek 

further opined, 

There is no evidence in this matter that Dr. Henze made 

any errors in medical judgment. Her care and treatment 

complied with the applicable standard of care for 

primary care physicians treating patients with the same 

or similar complaints following total knee replacement 

surgery and following complaints of wrist/hand pain.

Id. at 29.

II.

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute 

of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as 

a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). I must view the evidence 

and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Mr. Thomas, as the 

non-moving party. Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 652 (7th Cir. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:3231
9

2005). Nevertheless, Mr. Thomas must “present specific facts 

establishing a material issue for trial, and any inferences must 

rely on more than mere speculation or conjecture.” Giles v. 

Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1048 (7th Cir. 2019).

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual 

punishment extends to “deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs of prisoners.” Brown v. LaVoie, 90 F.4th 1206, 1212 (7th 

Cir. 2024) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). “A 

delay in treating non-life-threatening but painful conditions may 

constitute deliberate indifference if the delay exacerbated the 

injury or unnecessarily prolonged an inmate’s pain.” Reck v. 

Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 27 F.4th 473, 483 (7th Cir. 2022) 

(quoting Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 753 (7th Cir. 2011)). Of 

course, not every delay in a prisoner’s medical treatment gives 

rise to a constitutional claim. Even outside of the prison setting, 

patients often must wait weeks or months for specialist 

appointments. “[W]hether the length of a delay is tolerable depends 

on the seriousness of the condition and the ease of providing 

treatment.” Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 730 (7th Cir. 2016), 

as amended (Aug. 25, 2016).

Mr. Thomas’s primary Eighth Amendment theory as to Dr. Henze 

is that she should have done more to get him an in-person 

appointment with a bone specialist after UIC providers indicated 

that he did not meet their criteria for an in-person appointment 

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:3232
10

in April of 2020, and that she should have done more generally to 

treat his leg pain. With respect to Mr. Thomas’s hand and wrist 

injury, he insists that Dr. Henze was deliberately indifferent to 

his condition when she initially misdiagnosed his injury as a 

fracture; when she removed his wrist brace and revoked his permit 

for same; and when she generally failed to treat his injury 

promptly and adequately. But no reasonable jury could find on the

record here that Dr. Henze was deliberately indifferent either to 

Mr. Thomas’s leg and knee issue or to his wrist and hand problems. 

To begin, it is undisputed that the reason Mr. Thomas waited 

several months for his specialist appointment with Dr. Farid is 

that UIC determined he was not eligible for an in-person 

appointment under its Covid-19 protocol. Mr. Thomas complains that 

Dr. Henze did not “send a follow-up email” after requesting 

clarification as to the basis for UIC’s determination, but nothing 

in the record suggests that anything Dr. Henze could have said 

would have altered that determination. Mr. Thomas further concedes 

that whatever Dr. Henze’s initial level of concern upon reviewing 

the finding of “bone infarcts,” his condition was never dangerous 

or life threatening, nor did it worsen while he waited for his 

specialist appointments. 

As for Mr. Thomas’s wrist/hand injury, while Mr. Thomas

complains generally of delays and inadequate care, the record 

reveals that Dr. Henze referred him promptly for a variety tests 

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:3233
11

and scans in an effort to ascertain the source of his pain. When 

his pain did not resolve, she referred him to outside hand 

specialists, and she implemented the treatment plan that these 

specialists established. Mr. Thomas complains that Dr. Henze took 

away his wrist brace, yet he offers no evidence to controvert her 

opinion that the brace was contraindicated for his condition. 

Indeed, he offers nothing to contradict the opinion of defendants’ 

expert, Dr. Sladek, that Dr. Henze’s treatment of Mr. Thomas’s 

various conditions was appropriate, reasonable, and within the 

standard of care. For all of these reasons, Mr. Thomas has not 

raised a triable issue as to whether Dr. Henze was deliberately 

indifferent to his serious medical condition or otherwise 

responsible for violating his Eighth Amendment rights.

Mr. Thomas’s claim of retaliation against Dr. Henze fares no 

better. This claim requires him to establish that: “(1) he engaged 

in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a 

deprivation that would likely deter First Amendment activity in 

the future; and (3) the First Amendment activity was ‘at least a 

motivating factor’ in [Dr. Henze’s] decision to take the 

retaliatory action.” Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th 

Cir. 2009). His theory is that Dr. Henze retaliated against him 

for contacting an attorney and for filing grievances concerning 

his medical care by: failing to get him an earlier appointment 

with a bone specialist at UIC; by failing to see him; and by taking 

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:3234
12

away his crutch and his arm brace. While these facts, if true, may 

support a First Amendment claim, see Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 

768, 783 (7th Cir. 2015) (“filing a non-frivolous grievance is a 

constitutionally protected activity sufficient to support a 

retaliation claim,” and “denial of medical treatment is a 

deprivation likely to dissuade a reasonable person from engaging 

in future First Amendment activity”), they simply are not 

substantiated by the record.3 First, it is not clear that Dr. Henze 

knew about Mr. Thomas’s grievances, as she would have had to for 

those grievances to motivate her conduct. But even setting this 

issue aside, it appears that Dr. Henze did all she could to 

schedule Mr. Thomas’s outside appointments. Moreover, there is no 

evidence that she refused to see him any time an examination was 

medically necessary or might have improved his condition.4 Summary 

judgment of this claim is likewise appropriate.

3 Mr. Thomas also argues that Dr. Henze retaliated by yelling at 

him and shaking her finger in his face; but if there is any 

authority to suggest that this type of conduct is likely to 

dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in protected First 

Amendment activity, he has not cited it.

4 At her deposition, Dr. Henze was questioned about Mr. Thomas’s 

allegation that she failed to see him about his knee complaints in 

April of 2020. She stated, “we had dealt with the infarcts and the 

plan of care. So there was nothing else further that I could do on

site and the pandemic kind of superseded in importance the infarcts 

that I had already managed by referring him out.” Henze Dep., ECF 

137-2 at 56:17-22. Mr. Thomas offers no evidence to suggest that 

his condition worsened in any respect because Dr. Henze did not 

examine him at that point. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:3235
13

This leaves only Mr. Thomas’s Monell claim against Wexford, 

which seeks to hold Wexford liable for violation of his Eighth 

Amendment rights. As a private corporation, Wexford may be liable 

under § 1983 only if the execution of one of its policies or 

customs inflicts the constitutional injury Mr. Thomas asserts. 

Dean v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 18 F. 4th 214, 235 (7th Cir. 

2021) (citing Iskander v. Vill. of Forest Park, 690 F.2d 126, 128 

(7th Cir. 1982)). 

To his credit, Mr. Thomas clearly identifies an ascertainable 

policy that he claims caused his alleged constitutional injury: 

“Wexford’s policy of over-utilizing the UIC, which Wexford knew to 

cause significant delays in inmate care and which resulted in Mr. 

Thomas’s prolonged and unnecessary pain.” Resp., ECF 135 at 1. But 

even assuming that such a policy existed, nothing in the record 

suggests that it caused the injury Mr. Thomas claims. Indeed, Mr. 

Thomas points to no evidence suggesting that he would have been 

seen sooner than December of 2020 by any specialist anywhere. The 

evidence is undisputed that UIC’s Covid-19 protocols are what 

prevented him from being seeing in person prior to December of 

2020, and Mr. Thomas does not assert that other hospitals 

maintained materially different protocols that would have allowed 

him to be seen in person. Moreover, it does not appear that Mr. 

Thomas’s plan of treatment changed in any material way after his 

December 2020 visit to UIC’s bone specialist. Accordingly, there 

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:3236
14 

is no reason to believe that Mr. Thomas’s medical outcome or level 

of pain would have been any different had he been referred to a 

specialist willing to see him in April rather than in December. 

III. 

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions for summary 

judgment are granted. 

 

ENTER ORDER:

 

__________________________ 

 Elaine E. Bucklo 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: September 4, 2024 

Case: 1:20-cv-04564 Document #: 147 Filed: 09/04/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:3237