Beitman v. Correct Care Solutions

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided September 16, 2021·No. 3:17-cv-08229·Unknown

Opinion

Case 3:17-cv-08229-JAT-DMF Document 198 Filed 09/16/21 Page 1 of 43

1 WO JDN

2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lee Michael Beitman, No. CV 17-08229-PCT-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. ORDER 12 Correct Care Solutions, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Lee Michael Beitman, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 17 Complex (ASPC)-Florence, South Unit, brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correct Care Solutions (CCS), Centurion of Arizona, LLC 19 (Centurion), and multiple individual medical personnel: Dr. Martin Gruenberg, Dr. D. 20 Schmidt, Nurse Practitioner (NP) Stephanie Herrick, Nurse Amber Norton, NP Dorothy 21 Igwe, and NP Betty Hahn. (Docs. 35, 90.)1 Before the Court are three Motions for 22 Summary Judgment: (1) one filed by CCS, Dr. Gruenberg, NP Herrick, Nurse Norton, and 23 Dr. Schmidt (CCS Defendants) (Doc. 129); (2) one filed by NP Igwe and NP Hahn as to 24 claims that arose pre-July 1, 2019 (Doc. 141); and (3) one filed by Centurion and NP Hahn 25 as to claims that arose post-July 1, 2019—the date Centurion took over as medical provider 26 27 1 CCS is the private medical provider contracted to provide medical services at the 28 Central Arizona Correctional Facility (CACF), a private prison in Florence, Arizona that is operated by the GEO Group. Centurion is the private medical provider contracted to provide medical services at the ASPC-Florence. Case 3:17-cv-08229-JAT-DMF Document 198 Filed 09/16/21 Page 2 of 43

1 (Doc. 137). All three Motions will be granted in part and denied in part. 2 I. Background 3 In Count One of his Third Amended Complaint, Beitman alleged that in February 4 2016, while he was housed at the GEO private prison in Kingman Arizona, he was 5 assaulted by another prisoner and punched in the side of the face, which caused him to 6 suffer a displaced jaw, a pushed-in cheek bone, and severe pain. (Doc. 35 at 4.) Beitman 7 alleged that Dr. Schmidt and NP Herrick failed to provide adequate treatment for his 8 injuries and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, and Beitman further 9 alleged that CCS had customs, policies, and practices to ignore health needs requests; to 10 falsify medical records and keep incomplete records; and to deny specialist care, medical 11 procedures, and medications in part to save money. (Id. at 7–8.) Beitman requested 12 damages and injunctive relief from Centurion in the form of medical treatment to repair 13 injuries to his face. (Id. at 9, 15; Doc. 90 at 6.) 14 In Count Two, Beitman alleged that for years he was denied proper medication and 15 proper medication dosages to treat his low testosterone levels despite lab tests and prior 16 medical records confirming his low testosterone levels. (Doc. 35 at 9–11.) Beitman 17 alleged that Nurse Norton, Dr. Gruenberg, and then NP Igwe and NP Hahn, all failed to 18 properly treat his hormone condition, and, consequently, Beitman suffered secondary 19 problems including pain, cramping, and spine deterioration. (Id. at 10–11.) Beitman seeks 20 damages and medical treatment from Centurion for spine injuries caused by the denial of 21 adequate medication for his low testosterone. (Id. at 15; Doc. 90 at 6.) 22 II. Summary Judgment Standard 23 A court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine 24 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). The 26 movant bears the initial responsibility of presenting the basis for its motion and identifying 27 those portions of the record, together with affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate 28 the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

-2- Case 3:17-cv-08229-JAT-DMF Document 198 Filed 09/16/21 Page 3 of 43

1 If the movant fails to carry its initial burden of production, the nonmovant need not 2 produce anything. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 3 1099, 1102–03 (9th Cir. 200). But if the movant meets its initial responsibility, the burden 4 then shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute and that the 5 fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the 6 governing law, and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable 7 jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250; see Triton 8 Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). The nonmovant need 9 not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor, First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. 10 Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288–89 (1968); however, it must “come forward with 11 specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 12 Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal citation omitted); see Fed. 13 R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). 14 At summary judgment, the judge’s function is not to weigh the evidence and 15 determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 16 477 U.S. at 249. In its analysis, the court does not make credibility determinations; it must 17 believe the nonmovant’s evidence and draw all inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. Id. at 18 255; Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). The court need 19 consider only the cited materials, but it may consider any other materials in the record. 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). Further, where the nonmovant is pro se, the court must consider 21 as evidence in opposition to summary judgment all of the pro se litigant’s contentions that 22 are based on personal knowledge and that are set forth in verified pleadings and motions. 23 Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2004); Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 24 460 (9th Cir. 1995). 25 Finally, where the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the court may also consider 26 developments that postdate the motions to determine whether an injunction is warranted. 27 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 846 (1994). 28

-3- Case 3:17-cv-08229-JAT-DMF Document 198 Filed 09/16/21 Page 4 of 43

1 III. Relevant Facts 2 A. Testosterone Claim at CACF-Florence 3 Beitman has received hormone replacement therapy since 1987 due to pituitary 4 trauma suffered in an accident. (Doc. 50, Beitman Decl. ¶ 3.) Prior to his incarceration, 5 Beitman was treated by Scottsdale physician Dr. Paul Stallone, a specialist in hormone 6 replacement therapy. (Id. ¶ 6.) Dr. Stallone diagnosed Beitman with pituitary trauma and 7 treated him with testosterone cypionate; micronized DHEA; humatropin (growth 8 hormone); and sermorelin (growth hormone-releasing hormone). (Id. ¶ 9.) 9 Beitman was initially incarcerated at ASPC-Alhambra in Phoenix on April 25, 2014. 10 (Doc. 195, Pl.’s Statement of Facts ¶ 3.) During intake, Beitman explained his existing 11 medical conditions and current medications, and the provider ordered labs for a thyroid 12 panel and testosterone. (Id.; Doc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Beitman v. Correct Care Solutions, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Beitman v. Correct Care Solutions (Beitman v. Correct Care Solutions) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Holley
23 F.3d 902 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
Dean Effarage Farrow v. Dr. West
320 F.3d 1235 (Eleventh Circuit, 2003)
First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.
391 U.S. 253 (Supreme Court, 1968)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Smith v. Wade
461 U.S. 30 (Supreme Court, 1983)
City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik
485 U.S. 112 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Hardin v. Straub
490 U.S. 536 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Wallace v. Kato
127 S. Ct. 1091 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Sepulveda
15 F.3d 1161 (First Circuit, 1993)
Hoffman v. Applicators Sales & Service, Inc.
439 F.3d 9 (First Circuit, 2006)
Chester Marks v. Jerry Parra
785 F.2d 1419 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)
Barbara P. Hutchinson v. United States of America
838 F.2d 390 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)
Cleolis Hunt v. Dental Department
865 F.2d 198 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Eric Sanchez v. Duane R. Vild
891 F.2d 240 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)