United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 29, 2019*

Decided August 29, 2019

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 17-2848

MAURICE SHAW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., 

et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 13-cv-09335

Sharon Johnson Coleman,

Judge.

O R D E R

Maurice Shaw, an Illinois inmate, asserts that a prison medical doctor delayed 

treating his injured shoulder with physical therapy, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court entered summary judgment for the 

doctor, concluding that Shaw lacked evidence showing that the treatment he received 

departed from accepted medical standards or that the doctor was responsible for the 

delay. We affirm.

 

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not 

significantly aid the court. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 17-2848 Page 2

Shaw hurt his shoulders while bench pressing in the prison yard in 2010. Because

both shoulders could not be treated at the same time, Shaw sought treatment first for

his left shoulder and wore a protective sling. He then sought treatment for his right 

shoulder in February 2012. He was referred to the University of Illinois at Chicago for 

an assessment. An MRI taken in May revealed a partial tear in his right rotator cuff, and 

an orthopedic surgeon at UIC recommended that Shaw undergo four months of 

physical therapy.

A Wexford staff physician at the prison approved the recommendation and 

forwarded it to the prison’s Medical Records Department with instructions to send it to 

the Physical Therapy Department. A month passed with no word about the physical 

therapy. Shaw then filed a grievance describing the MRI results and the 

recommendation for physical therapy. In September, the grievance officer denied his 

grievance, explaining that Shaw’s medical file contained no order specifying that he 

should receive physical therapy.

That same month, the prison medical director, Dr. Saleh Obaisi, evaluated Shaw 

for the first time. Dr. Obaisi examined Shaw’s right shoulder, reviewed the MRI results,

and diagnosed tendinosis. He offered Shaw a steroid injection to reduce pain and 

inflammation.

By March 2013, Shaw had yet to receive physical therapy, so he filed another 

grievance. He met with a physician’s assistant and showed her copies of his MRI results 

and the recommendation for physical therapy. She then ordered physical therapy and 

wrote that it be done “ASAP.” Still no therapy took place.

The next month Shaw met again with Dr. Obaisi, who charted a plan for physical 

therapy and referred him to the Physical Therapy Department. The doctor also referred 

Shaw back to the UIC orthopedic clinic for a follow-up visit.

In August, Dr. Obaisi examined Shaw a third time, gave him another steroid 

injection, prescribed two medications for inflammation and pain, and ordered an x-ray 

of his right shoulder. About a week later, Shaw finally began physical therapy. 
No. 17-2848 Page 3

Shaw sued Dr. Obaisi1 for being deliberately indifferent to his pain and need for 

physical therapy. The district court entered summary judgment for the doctor, 

concluding that Shaw’s medical need was serious, but no evidence in the record 

reflected that Dr. Obaisi had acted with deliberate indifference. According to the court, 

there was no evidence that Dr. Obaisi was personally responsible for any delays or that 

his prescribed treatment regimen departed from accepted medical standards. 

On appeal, Shaw first argues that a material dispute exists over whether 

Dr. Obaisi acted with deliberate indifference by delaying the implementation of the 

orthopedic surgeon’s physical-therapy recommendation for 14 months. Dr. Obaisi must 

have known about the recommendation, Shaw insists, because he reviewed the MRI at 

their first meeting in September 2012. 

Shaw, however, has not put forth evidence that Dr. Obaisi knew about the 

recommendation or refused to refer him for physical therapy. To establish deliberate 

indifference, Shaw had to put forth evidence from which a jury could find that

Dr. Obaisi knew of and recklessly disregarded a serious health concern, for which the 

doctor was personally responsible. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Arnett 

v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 755–57 (7th Cir. 2011). The record shows that Dr. Obaisi learned 

of the recommendation for therapy at Shaw’s second evaluation in April 2013. At that 

time, Dr. Obaisi referred Shaw to the prison’s Physical Therapy Department as well as 

to the orthopedic surgeon for a follow-up visit. Although another four months passed 

before Shaw received physical therapy, he has not presented evidence that this delay 

can be imputed to Dr. Obaisi. See Arnett, 658 F.3d at 757. To the extent that Shaw faults 

Dr. Obaisi for missing the recommendation for physical therapy in his medical file, such 

an oversight may amount to negligence but cannot establish deliberate indifference. See 

id. at 758 (doctor’s failure to inquire about delay in receiving prescribed medication for 

rheumatoid arthritis, despite patient’s repeated requests, may reflect negligence but not 

deliberate indifference). 

 

1Dr. Obaisi is now deceased and Ghaliah Obaisi, the Independent Executor of the Estate

of Saleh Obaisi, is substituted as a party in this case. Shaw also sued a host of other 

defendants—a grievance officer, several medical directors, a healthcare administrator, 

the prison’s medical-services contractor, and two wardens—but he does not contest the 

district court’s entry of summary judgment in their favor, so we say nothing more about 

these defendants here.
No. 17-2848 Page 4

Shaw next maintains that there is a genuine issue of fact about whether 

Dr. Obaisi’s initial course of treatment—steroid injections and anti-inflammatory 

medication—substantially departed from accepted medical judgment. A substantial 

departure in care may amount to deliberate indifference. See Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 

894–95 (7th Cir. 2008). Shaw relies on the expert report of Dr. Mitchell Sheinkop, an 

orthopedic surgeon, who opined that the standard treatment for rotator cuff-related 

symptoms is physical therapy. 

Dr. Sheinkop’s report, however, fails to substantiate how Dr. Obaisi’s initial 

treatment departed from accepted medical judgment. Dr. Sheinkop asserted that 

therapy is the standard of care, but he said nothing about why that is, or support his 

conclusion with any reference to medical sources. Indeed, elsewhere in the report,

Dr. Sheinkop suggested the contrary: he noted that patients with partial tears in their 

rotator cuff can be treated with “exercise and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory 

drugs.” An article he attached to his report even highlighted that “[a]nti-inflammatory 

medication, steroid injections, and physical therapy may all be of benefit in treating 

symptoms of a cuff tear.” An expert’s unsupported speculation about an ultimate issue 

of fact is insufficient to avoid summary judgment. See Ennenga v. Starns, 677 F.3d 766, 

781 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Bourke v. Conger, 639 F.3d 344, 347 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n 

expert report that lacks foundation and depth will be given little consideration by 

courts.”). Dr. Sheinkop’s report fails to raise a genuine fact question about whether

Dr. Obaisi’s initial treatment of steroid injections and anti-inflammatory medicine 

departed from accepted medical judgment.

AFFIRMED