Davidson v. Lee

Background

Ronald Davidson sued Chung Shuk Lee, Susan Mueller, Carl J. Koenigsmann, and unidentified medical-services staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, while in custody at Shawangunk Correctional Facility, the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His allegations concerned throat pain, shoulder problems, left-knee issues, back pain, and dental care. He sued the named defendants in their individual capacities.

At the summary-judgment stage, Davidson was representing himself. He did not file a response to the defendants’ required statement of undisputed facts. Judge Seibel treated properly supported facts in that statement as admitted, but she also reviewed Davidson’s entire submission for evidence of factual disputes. The court noted that Davidson’s opposition contained very few citations to the record and that allegations in the complaint, unsupported assertions, and general references to exhibits could not create a genuine dispute of material fact.

Court’s analysis

To prevail on an Eighth Amendment medical-indifference claim, Davidson had to show both that he was deprived of adequately serious medical care and that each defendant knew about and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. The court explained that a disagreement with medical judgments, a preference for different treatment, negligence, or medical malpractice does not by itself establish a constitutional violation.

As to Lee, the court assumed for purposes of argument that factual issues might exist concerning the seriousness of some treatment decisions, but found no evidence that Lee acted with the required state of mind. Regarding Davidson’s throat complaints, Lee had met with him, prescribed and increased medication, and arranged outside evaluations. The court concluded that Davidson’s disagreement with the decision not to provide a foam wedge or refer him for a surgical consultation did not show deliberate indifference. Regarding the shoulder and knee claims, the court found that several procedures were postponed at Davidson’s request or because he refused preoperative preparations, and that Lee continued to arrange monitoring and specialist care. The court also found no evidence that Lee was responsible for scheduling the later shoulder surgery. Regarding the back, Lee arranged physical therapy, evaluated Davidson, and planned to reassess him; Davidson did not report further back problems. The court dismissed those claims.

The court concluded that Mueller’s review of referral and surgical decisions did not show that she knowingly disregarded an excessive health risk. It also found that Koenigsmann’s receipt of correspondence and referral of matters to subordinates did not establish the personal involvement required for liability under § 1983. The dental-care claims failed because the named defendants did not provide or control Davidson’s dental care, and Davidson did not address those claims in his opposition. Claims based on events before December 15, 2014 were dismissed as barred by the three-year limitations period; the court also noted that those claims were not addressed in the opposition and could be treated as abandoned. Claims against the unidentified John and Jane Doe defendants were dismissed without prejudice because Davidson had not identified and served them by the close of discovery.

Ruling

Judge Cathy Seibel granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court entered judgment for the defendants and closed the case. It also held that, at minimum, Lee, Mueller, and Koenigsmann were protected by qualified immunity because reasonable officials could have believed their medical decisions were lawful. The opinion stated that the court did not need to decide definitively whether malpractice occurred because the record showed that no defendant consciously disregarded an excessive risk to Davidson’s health.