Nowell v. Stewart

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas
DecidedMarch 4, 2022
Docket4:19-cv-00444
StatusUnknown

This text of Nowell v. Stewart (Nowell v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nowell v. Stewart, (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

JOE BERNARD NOWELL, JR. PLAINTIFF ADC #179135

V. No. 4:19CV00444-JTR

GARY STEWART, Doctor, Faulkner County Detention Center, et al. DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I. Introduction Plaintiff Joe Bernard Nowell, Jr. (“Nowell”) initiated this action while he was a pretrial detainee at the Faulkner County Detention Center (“FCDC”).1 Construed together, his pro se § 1983 Complaint, Addendum, and Amended Complaint, alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights and committed medical malpractice. 2 Docs. 2, 3, 9. Nowell sued the Defendants in their personal capacity only. Doc. 9 at 2.

1Nowell is now an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Corrections, serving a sentence of Life Without Parole for Capital Murder.

2The Court has read Nowell’s pro se pleadings, together, as constituting his claims. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 849 (8th Cir. 2014) (pro se complaint must be “liberally construed” and “pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties”); Kiir v. N.D. Pub. Health, 651 F. App’x 567, 568 (8th Cir. 2016) (amendment “intended to supplement, rather than to supplant, the original complaint,” should be read together with original complaint). Nowell alleges that, when he arrived at the FCDC in September 2018, he had a “serious injury” to his right arm and shoulder, with 85% paralysis. According to

Nowell, Defendants Gary Stewart, M.D. (“Dr. Stewart”) and Nurse Monte Munyan (“Munyan”) failed to provide adequate medical care for: (1) his arm injury, which resulted in his arm and hand becoming “crippled” and “useless”; (2) the back injury

he suffered later in a slip and fall on a wet floor; and (3) his psychological issues. Doc. 2 at 4-10, 17-18; Doc. 3 at 6-9, 13-17; Doc. 9 at 4-8. Nowell also alleges that: (1) Defendant Corporal Lisa Phillips (“Phillips”) failed to properly administer his medications, and falsely reported that he was

refusing medications (Doc. 9 at 6-7, 14); (2) Dr. Stewart discontinued all medications for Nowell’s physical and psychological conditions in May/June 2019, based in part on Phillips’ false reports (Doc. 2 at 10-15; Doc. 3 at 10-14; Doc. 9 at

9); and Defendants Phillips and the FCDC were responsible for his fall, on March 25, 2019. Doc. 3 at 4-5, 13-14, 17; Doc. 9 at 7-8, 11-12. Finally, Nowell alleges a medical malpractice claim against Dr. Stewart. In previous Orders, the Court dismissed all of Nowell’s claims against the

FCDC and Munyan, and Nowell’s “slip and fall” claim against Phillips. Docs. 14, 15, 34. Accordingly, Nowell’s remaining claims are inadequate medical care claims against Dr. Stewart related to the treatment he provided for the injuries to Nowell’s

arm, back, and mental health issues; inadequate medical care claims against Dr. Stewart and Phillips for the way they administered his medications; and a state law medical malpractice claim against Dr. Stewart.

Phillips and Dr. Stewart have now filed Motions for Summary Judgment, Statements of Undisputed Facts, and Briefs in Support arguing that all of Nowell’s remaining claims against them should be dismissed with prejudice.3 Docs. 35, 36,

37, 40, 41, & 42. Nowell filed a Response to Defendants Statement of Facts and a Declaration. Docs. 46 & 47. Defendant Dr. Stewart filed a Reply. Doc. 48. For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 35 & 40) are GRANTED, and all of Nowell’s remaining claims are

DISMISSED, with prejudice. II. Discussion

A. Relevant Facts Giving Rise to Nowell’s Claims 1. Nowell alleges that on September 8, 2018, when police arrived at his home, he was “uninjured” in bed, but near death due to taking “way too many pills.”

3Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once that has been done, the nonmoving party must present specific facts demonstrating that there is a material dispute for trial. See Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c); Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). On his way to the hospital in an ambulance, an EMT repeatedly bent his arm “way far backward.” Doc. 2 at 4.

2. Nowell also alleges that on September 11, 2018, a doctor at the hospital ordered an orthopedic consultation. Doc. 9 at 5. 3. Nowell remained in the hospital until his release on September 21,

2018, at which time he was arrested and booked into the FCDC. Doc. 42 at ¶1. 4. During his initial health screening in the FCDC, medical staff confirmed prescriptions for Quetiapine (Seroquel), Lisinopril, Trazodone, Bactrim, and Keflex. Doc. 42-4 at 1. In accordance with FCDC practice, staff immediately

filled the prescriptions. Doc. 42-6 at 1. 5. On September 27, 2018, Dr. Stewart examined Nowell’s right arm and shoulder in response to his complaints of pain.4 Dr. Stewart reviewed Nowell’s

medications and found no need to change the plan of care for his mental health issues. Dr. Stewart understood that Nowell had required recent hospitalization for a serious drug overdose. He noted Nowell’s right arm injury, with continuing neurological signs and symptoms, and assessed that the symptoms would “need to

heal naturally as outside intervention would not accelerate the healing and/or

4In his pleadings, Nowell alleges that, on September 25, 2018, Dr. Stewart refused to treat his right arm injury or refer Nowell for orthopedic treatment. Doc. 9 at 4. In any event, Nowell’s medical records make it clear Dr. Stewart examined him shortly after Nowell complained of right arm and shoulder pain. improve the recovery.” Doc. 42-6 at 1-2. Dr. Stewart noted that the arm injury was “not addressed as an active commodity in the hospital reflecting that there was no

emergent or urgent need at [that] time for anything greater than expectant management.” Doc. 42-6 at 2. Nowell was “displeased with this assessment and [Dr. Stewart’s] decision not to prescribe the use of the antipsychotic Seroquel.” Doc. 42-

6 at 2. 6. Dr. Stewart stated he disfavored use of Seroquel in jail due to its high abuse rate by prisoners. Instead, he prescribed Prozac for Nowell. Doc. 42-4 at 2; Doc. 42-6 at 2.5 He discontinued Nowell’s blood pressure medication because his

readings were within normal limits, while off his medication, which supported Dr. Stewart’s decision that Nowell no longer required it. Doc. 42-6 at 2. 7. Medical records establish that, on October 3, 2018, Dr. Stewart saw

Nowell and found his hand looked “great, no change in range of motion or strength.”6 Doc. 42-6 at 2. Dr. Stewart gave Nowell a seven day script for Ibuprofen for “arm pain/fibromyalgia complaints.” Doc. 42-4 at 3-4; Doc. 42-6 at 2. Nowell

5Based on Nowell’s continuing complaints about the Prozac, Dr. Stewart later prescribed Seroquel. Doc. 46 at 6.

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

Related

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Langford v. Norris
614 F.3d 445 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester
643 F.3d 1031 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)
Dulany v. Carnahan
132 F.3d 1234 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)
Bryan v. Endell
141 F.3d 1290 (Eighth Circuit, 1998)
Maurice Moore v. Dr. John Duffy
255 F.3d 543 (Eighth Circuit, 2001)
Gibson v. Weber
433 F.3d 642 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)
Hines v. Anderson
547 F.3d 915 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
Robbins v. Johnson
241 S.W.3d 747 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2006)
Samvel Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
760 F.3d 843 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)
James Saylor v. Randy Kohl, M.D.
812 F.3d 637 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
Diw Bol Kiir v. North Dakota Public Health
651 F. App'x 567 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
Mark Morris v. Kelley Cradduck
954 F.3d 1055 (Eighth Circuit, 2020)
David Ivey v. Audrain County, Missouri
968 F.3d 845 (Eighth Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nowell v. Stewart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nowell-v-stewart-ared-2022.