Opinion ID: 4654718
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mays, Coleman, and Dr. Davida

Text: In the operative complaint, Peterson alleges that Podocon25 contains “a powerful caustic and severe irritant” and that its packaging repeatedly and prominently warns that it is to be applied only by a physician and is not to be dispensed to the patient. Peterson then makes allegations specific to the individual defendants. He alleges that Dr. Davida “prescribed for plaintiff a medication known as ‘Podocon-25’” and that he 8 No. 19-2592 “ignored the FDA mandated warnings and directed that a non-physician apply the Podocon-25 to plaintiff’s genital warts.” The remaining allegations against Dr. Davida relate to his employment under Wexford. Regarding Mays and Coleman, Peterson alleges that “[t]he job duties of defendant Mays included applying the Podocon25 to plaintiff’s genital warts” and that “Mays refused to apply the Podocon-25 to plaintiff’s genital warts, instructing plaintiff to do it himself.” He further alleges that “Mays knew that plaintiff would suffer personal injuries if plaintiff attempted to apply the Podocon-25 to his genital warts.” Peterson makes the same allegations against Coleman. In response to Mays and Coleman’s motion to dismiss, Peterson supplemented the complaint’s allegations. 2 He listed the possible “adverse reactions” described on the packaging and stated that Podocon-25 is to be “sparingly” applied and then “thoroughly removed” with alcohol or soap and water, which were not available to him. To state a claim for deliberate indifference against these defendants, Peterson must allege that they were “aware … that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed],” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, and that their “subjective response was so inadequate that it demonstrated an absence of professional judgment,” Arnett, 658 F.3d at 751. As the district court pointed out, Peterson makes conclusory allegations that these defendants had the requisite state of mind, stating that they “ignored 2 In “opposing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,” Peterson was free to “elaborate on his factual allegations so long as the new elaborations are consistent with the pleadings.” Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743, 745 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012). No. 19-2592 9 the FDA mandated warnings” and “knew that [Peterson] would suffer personal injuries.” There are no related factual claims from which we could draw an inference that they “actually kn[e]w about yet disregard[ed] a substantial risk of harm to [Peterson’s] health or safety.” Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 476 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Petties, 836 F.3d at 728). We acknowledge that “Rule 9(b) allows states of mind to be alleged generally,” Armstrong v. Daily, 786 F.3d 529, 547 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 594 (7th Cir. 2009), but the deliberate indifference standard is not satisfied by these conclusory statements alone. Peterson’s allegations regarding his treatment ultimately sink his complaint. Let’s consider the course of treatment as described by the complaint. Peterson did receive treatment for his genital warts. Of course, the “receipt of some medical care does not automatically defeat a claim of deliberate indifference if … the treatment was ‘so blatantly inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreatment likely to seriously aggravate’ a medical condition.” Edwards, 478 F.3d at 831 (quoting Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996)) (emphasis in original). But Peterson does not allege that prescribing Podocon-25 was “blatantly inappropriate.” Id. Indeed, the complaint asserts that one of the components of Podocon-25 is “prescribed for the removal of soft genital warts.” Peterson’s claim instead relies on how the medication was administered. Significantly, the administration of Podocon-25 is where the complaint is most lacking. The complaint says only that Dr. Davida directed a “non-physician” to apply the medication. As Peterson’s counsel clarified at oral argument, “nonphysician” refers to a nurse rather than an inmate. So Peterson has alleged only that Dr. Davida, a licensed physician, 10 No. 19-2592 instructed a licensed nurse to apply a prescribed medication appropriate for treating the patient’s condition. Although Peterson cites Echols v. Craig in support, Dr. Davida’s alleged actions do not come close to the alleged conduct in Echols. See Echols v. Craig, 855 F.3d 807, 812 (7th Cir. 2017) (finding “no difficulty concluding that [the plaintiff] state[d] a plausible claim of deliberate indifference” where he alleged that the doctor “knew he broke a drill bit during the [tooth] extraction, … sutured his gum without accounting for the broken pieces, … obtained an X-ray that confirmed its presence but did nothing to address the problem”). As for the nurses, Peterson alleges only that it was within their “job duties” to apply the medication, yet they instructed Peterson to apply the Podocon-25 himself. It does not matter whether Dr. Davida instructed them or whether they independently chose to dispense the medication to Peterson. Holloway, 700 F.3d at 1075 (“A nurse may … act with deliberate indifference if he or she ‘ignore[s] obvious risks to an inmate’s health’ in following a physician’s orders.” (quoting Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 683 (7th Cir. 2012))). Regardless, the allegations fail to state a claim that their actions were “so inadequate that [they] demonstrated an absence of professional judgment, that is, that ‘no minimally competent professional would have so responded under those circumstances.’” Arnett, 658 F.3d at 751 (quoting Roe, 631 F.3d at 857). At bottom, Peterson’s complaint fails to allege that any of these three defendants were “aware … that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed],” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, and that their “subjective response was so inadequate that it demonstrated an absence of professional judgment.” Arnett, 658 F.3d at 751. Peterson’s allegations that Dr. Davida prescribed an No. 19-2592 11 appropriate medication and instructed the nurses to administer it and that Mays and Coleman dispensed that medication to Peterson for him to apply himself do not evince “something approaching a total unconcern for the prisoner’s welfare in the face of serious risks.” Donald v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 982 F.3d 451, 458 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Rosario v. Brawn, 670 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2012)). We therefore conclude that Peterson failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference against Dr. Davida, Mays, and Coleman.