Bernel v. Korobkova

Background

Allen Bernel sued Yelena Korobkova, Nurse John Doe, “Nurse Practice” John Doe, Katheleen Buttles, Ifeoma Awaka, Diane Hinton, Josh Krom, and William F. Keyser under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs while he was incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility. “Deliberate indifference” means knowingly disregarding a substantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner’s health.

Bernel alleged that after a fall in September 2020, he experienced headaches, dizziness, and pain involving his head, left hand, neck, back, shoulder, and chest. He claimed that medical staff refused to provide an MRI or a specialist visit and that he did not receive adequate pain medication. The opinion notes that Bernel disputed the date of the fall and some aspects of the treatment he received.

The medical records described examinations on multiple dates, including neurological examinations, vital-sign checks, physical examinations, and an x-ray of Bernel’s head, shoulder, arm, and hand. The x-ray showed no fractures. Medical staff provided or prescribed analgesic balm, Tylenol, ibuprofen, and aspirin at various points. On September 28, 2020, Bernel was told that an MRI was not medically indicated at that time. Bernel also filed a grievance, which Hinton investigated and Keyser denied.

Motion and Legal Standard

The moving defendants sought summary judgment. Summary judgment is granted when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute over an important fact requires a trial and that the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Although Bernel did not respond to the defendants’ required statement of facts, the court independently reviewed the record and considered his submissions with the additional consideration given to a person litigating without a lawyer.

To prevail on a medical-care claim under the Eighth Amendment, Bernel had to show both that he was denied care for a sufficiently serious medical condition and that the defendants knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. Mere negligence, or a disagreement with a medical provider’s choice of treatment, is not enough.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the evidence showed Bernel received repeated medical evaluations, an x-ray, physical and neurological examinations, and pain medication. The court held that the decision not to order an MRI or refer Bernel to a specialist was a disagreement about medical treatment, not deliberate indifference.

The court also rejected Bernel’s assertion that he received no pain medication until May 2022. It found that the medical records and Bernel’s own testimony showed that he received analgesic balm, Tylenol, ibuprofen, and aspirin. The court further explained that, even accepting Bernel’s account that he received aspirin instead of ibuprofen, choosing one pain medication over another did not establish deliberate indifference.

The opinion also addresses Bernel’s assertions concerning Hinton, Krom, staffing, and an allegedly incomplete form, concluding that he did not explain how those matters caused a denial of medical care.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It entered judgment for the defendants and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court also dismissed the deliberate-indifference claims against the unserved defendants Buttles and Awaka because those claims had the same deficiencies. The opinion does not state that these dismissals were with prejudice or without prejudice.