Opinion ID: 806090
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: cms

Text: The parties agree that Parsons can bring a Monell custom or policy claim against CMS. See Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996). “To prevail in a § 1983 action against [CMS, Plaintiff] must show that a policy or well-settled custom of the company was the ‘moving force’ behind the alleged deprivation of . . . rights.” See Braswell v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 419 F. App’x 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Miller v. Sanilac, 606 F.3d 240, 254-55 (6th Cir. 2010)). Although Parsons cannot point to any official CMS policy, he has arguably demonstrated that there existed a custom of ordering medications, if at all possible, from PharmaCorr in Oklahoma. A custom is a practice “that has not been formally approved by an appropriate decisionmaker,” but - 22 - No. 10-1584 and 11-1992 Parsons v. Caruso is “so widespread as to have the force of law.” Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997). Parsons presented the testimony of several defendants who suggested that the general practice was to order medications from PharmaCorr. However, even if this was the custom and the custom was attributable to CMS, Parsons cannot show that this custom was the “moving force” behind any deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights. See id. While Parsons has produced evidence that obtaining medications from PharmaCorr could sometimes take several days, there is also plenty of evidence that the staff was free to disregard the general practice of ordering from PharmaCorr in order to secure medication sooner. Because of the evidence that the general custom of ordering from PharmaCorr could be easily overridden by the medical staff at Standish, it cannot be said that this policy resulted in deliberate indifference to Parsons’s medical needs or was the moving force behind his alleged constitutional violations.