Wolfel v. Ferguson

689 F. Supp. 756, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13619, 1987 WL 47345
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedDecember 11, 1987
DocketNo. C-1-82-175
StatusPublished

This text of 689 F. Supp. 756 (Wolfel v. Ferguson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wolfel v. Ferguson, 689 F. Supp. 756, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13619, 1987 WL 47345 (S.D. Ohio 1987).

Opinion

ORDER

HERMAN J. WEBER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court after a trial to the bench held on May 11, 12, and 14, 1987. This Court does hereby submit Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52.

This action was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiff seeks damages, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief based on the medical treatment he has received while an inmate.

During the trial, plaintiff was granted a default judgment and damages against defendant Ferguson who had been served but did not respond to any pleadings nor appear at the trial. The Court then heard evidence going to the declaratory judgment and injunctive relief plaintiff sought against defendant Horn.

Plaintiff asks this Court to find from the evidence presented that the overall medical care delivery system at SOCF is deliberate[757]*757ly indifferent to his serious medical needs, specifically, that defendants have no treatment plan or program to treat plaintiffs chronic spinal problem, requiring him to repeatedly request treatment even though defendant Horn has both actual and constructive knowledge of his continuing medical problem.

Plaintiff further submits that the prison Medical Director’s general ‘standing orders’ require or at least permit Registered Nurses to diagnose, treat, or refuse to treat a long list of medical problems in violation of Sections 4723.06 and 4723.33 of the Ohio Revised Code. He alleges that there is an inadequate number of doctors employed at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility to attend to the plaintiff and the other inmates’ serious medical needs, and that this inadequacy is further aggravated by the 7 day stop order policy which requires the few over burdened physicians at the prison to examine an additional 200 inmates per week.

All acts, policies and procedures taken together and considered in their totality, plaintiff contends, evidence defendants’ acts, policies and procedures to be deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Defendants argue that the evidence shows that plaintiffs’ medical needs are not serious, defendant Horn has not intentionally denied or delayed plaintiff’s access to medical care, and has not been deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1) The Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and (4), relating to the cause of action arising under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, relating to declaratory judgments.

2) Plaintiff, Dennis M. Wolfel, is a state prisoner serving a sentence of 12 to 50 years, in the care, custody, and control of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and has been continuously incarcerated at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”) in Lucasville, Ohio from August 26, 1976 to present.

3) SOCF is an adult maximum security penitentiary. It houses approximately 2,500 prisoners.

4) Defendant, John Horn, is the Health Care Administrator at SOCF. He is a licensed Registered Nurse, prohibited by law from prescribing medication, diagnosing illness, or choosing a course of treatment.

5) Defendant’s immediate superior is L.R. Chaboudy, M.D., who is the Medical Director at SOCF and responsible for all medical care for the inmates.

6) The medical staff at SOCF consists of the following individuals:

Four (4) physicians
Six (6) Registered Nurses
Nine (9) Licensed Practical Nurses
Two (2) Emergency Medical Technicians

7) Medical procedures at SOCF pertinent to this case are:

Sick Call: Prisoners place themselves on sick call which is conducted every morning by a Registered Nurse. (Defendant Horn, however, does not conduct Sick Call). The R.N. examines each inmate and determines what symptoms are present. The R.N. then dispenses medication or refers the inmate to a physician pursuant to guidelines set up in the “Standing Orders.”
Standing Orders: These are guidelines prepared, revised, and monitored by the Medical Director and followed by the Nursing Staff to determine whether an inmate is to be referred to a physician, exhibits symptoms for which a certain medication is to be dispensed, or referral is necessary. The R.N. refers the patient to a physician in the following manner:
Emergency — immediately
Stat — as soon as possible
Routine — name goes on a waiting list Non referral — the patient is ordered to follow the standing orders and get back on sick call if further problems exist.
Seven Day Stop Order Policy: Certain enumerated drugs can only be prescribed [758]*758for seven days, at the end of which time, the inmate must be seen by a physician to have the drug prescription renewed. The Medical Committee implemented this policy pursuant to the recommendation of the prison pharmacist who felt that the physicians there were prescribing too many controlled substances to the inmates. The aim of this policy is to prevent addiction, abuse, and barter of strong drugs.

A physician is on call at all times. The prison physicians can refer an inmate to a specialist, who can make recommendations and prescribe a course of treatment subject to the Medical Director’s acceptance or rejection.

If an inmate is not satisfied with the results obtained during sick call, he can address a “Kite” — an intraprison communication — to the Medical Director explaining his condition and questioning the nurse’s determination.

8) Sometime in July of 1976, plaintiff injured his back while playing volleyball. He was admitted to James Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, for this back injury. An electromylograph examination was ordered by a Dr. Pabst, an orthopedic specialist, at this time which revealed nerve root encrouchment and mild irritability without denervation at the C-6 and C-7 area of plaintiff's spine. This condition is very painful. Ten pound traction, heat packs, pain medication, and bed rest were ordered by a doctor to treat the condition. On August 10, 1976, plaintiff was discharged from James Hospital. Plaintiff was again admitted several months later, however, to James Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, for the back injury. Dr. L. Pabst ordered bed rest, pain medication, a cervical collar and physical therapy twice a day.

9) As a result of this injury and other conditions, plaintiff has been diagnosed as having the following:

Mild dextroscoliosis
Osteoarthritis
Possible nerve root irritation between the C6 and C7 vertabrae

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

Related

Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Rhodes v. Chapman
452 U.S. 337 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Coffy v. Multi-County Narcotics Bureau
600 F.2d 570 (Sixth Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
689 F. Supp. 756, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13619, 1987 WL 47345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfel-v-ferguson-ohsd-1987.