Smego v. Mitchell
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Richard Smego, a civil detainee at the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center in Illinois, sued a dentist, two doctors, and a dental hygienist for violating his constitutional rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious dental problems. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants.
We conclude that Smego offered sufficient evidence for a jury to find that three of those defendants violated his constitutional rights, so we vacate the judgment in part and remand for further proceedings.
... ... ...
We reach the opposite conclusion regarding Dr. Lochard, who unlike Dr. Bednarz had examined Smego's painful teeth and cannot claim ignorance about the lack of treatment. The district court concluded that Dr. Lochard was entitled to defer all dental decisions to Dr. Mitchell. This belief that Dr. Lochard could meet his constitutional obligation to Smego simply by ignoring his untreated dental concerns is mistaken. Smego had told Dr. Lochard both that he was in pain and that he was unable to get necessary treatment from Dr. Mitchell. But unlike Dr. Bednarz, who investigated the problem by contacting Dr. Mitchell, there is no evidence in the record that Dr. Lochard ever contacted Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Bednarz, or Smego's therapist to see why Smego could not get dental care. That Dr. Lochard is not himself a dentist is beside the point; even non-medical personnel cannot stand by and ignore a detainee's complaints of serious medical issues. E.g., Berry, 604 F.3d at 441. Moreover, Dr. Lochard did not defer entirely to Dr. Mitchell. He prescribed Motrin despite the availability of substitutes and knowledge of Smego's allergy. A physician is deliberately indifferent when he persists in an ineffective treatment — and prescribing painkillers that cause a patient to experience pain certainly meets this standard — for a serious condition. See Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 314 (7th Cir.2011); Arnett, 658 F.3d at 754.
Accordingly, we VACATE the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Mitchell, Ms. Lawshea, and Dr. Lochard and REMAND the case for further proceedings on Smego's claim of deliberate indifference against those defendants. In all other respects we AFFIRM the judgment.
