United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
THURMON E. MOORE II, Plaintiff,
CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES and DR. HOOD, Defendants.
H. THOMPSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Thurmon E. Moore, a state
prisoner, filed this lawsuit challenging the medical care he
has been provided for pain in his hip under the Eighth
Amendment. This lawsuit is now before the court on the
recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that
defendants' motion for summary judgment should be
granted. Also before the court are plaintiff's objections
to the recommendation. After an independent and de novo
review of the record, the court concludes that
plaintiff's objections should be overruled and the
magistrate judge's recommendation adopted as the court is
convinced that plaintiff has not met his burden of putting
forward sufficient potentially admissible evidence to survive
summary judgment on the issue of deliberate indifference.
However, the court's review of the evidence submitted by
defendants did raise significant concerns which must be
court has several concerns about the following section of Dr.
Hood's sworn affidavit, which the court is concerned may
contain significant misstatements and misleading content.
First, he attests:
“18. Following this appointment and after consultation
with the site medical staff and the regional medical staff,
the decision was made to discontinue Mr. Moore's Lortab
prescription, and prescribe the non-narcotic pain medical
Norco as an alternative pain treatment. (COR008)....”
of Dr. Hugh Hood (doc. no. 31-1) at 8. The court is concerned
that this statement may be false, if Norco and Lortab are
both narcotics with the active ingredient hydrocodone, an
opiate. How, if so, could a physician swear under oath that
Norco is non-narcotic? This must be explained.
“19. Mr. Moore did not voice any complaints or submit
any sick call request forms related to his medications
between May 24, 2012, and August 14, 2012. (COR067). Mr.
Moore received and attended a follow appointment with the
site physician at Limestone on August 14, 2012, at which time
they continued to discuss the treatment plan for Mr.
Moore's osteoarthritis and the site physician confirmed
the absence of any significant changes in Mr. Moore's
overall condition before renewing his prescription for Norco.
(COR009).” This statement seems to have been offered to
show that after being switched to a ‘non-narcotic'
medication, plaintiff had no complaints. But the court is
concerned that this is again misleading, if Norco is a
statement seems to have been offered to show that after being
switched to a ‘non-narcotic' medication, plaintiff
had no complaints. But the court is concerned that this is
again misleading, if Norco is a narcotic.
affidavit next states:
“20. In response to a sick call request form submitted
on August 20, 2012, the medical staff summoned Mr. Moore to
the health care unit at Limestone for sick call on August 21,
2012 (COR071-73), and a subsequent appointment with the
clinician on August 23, 2012. During the appointment, Mr.
Moore remained ‘upset' because of the medical
decision to discontinue his narcotic pain regimen in favor of
a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication. (COR018). As
indicated in the medical records, Mr. Moore reported to the
medical staff that he had received narcotic pain medications
for more than two and a half years and that he wished to meet
with the site physician. (COR018-19).”
of Dr. Hugh Hood (doc. no. 31-1) at 8-9. Oddly, this section
gives the impression that plaintiff remained upset because he
had been switched to Norco, which is strange in light of the
prior paragraph's statement that he had no complaints
while on Norco. Furthermore, the affidavit fails to explain
that, at that point, plaintiff had been switched to Motrin.
Medical Notes (doc. no. 31-2) at 20 (“Continue
Motrin”). The affidavit also omits that plaintiff said
he was upset because he felt that “Dr. Hood
stopped” his pain medication. Medical Notes (doc. no.
31-2) at 19.
this listing is not exhaustive, one more troubling aspect of
the affidavit bears mentioning. In describing the medical
grievance process, Dr. Hood explains the appeal process as
“Below the portion of the form designated for the
‘Response, ' the following notation appears:
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL THIS REVIEW YOU MAY REQUEST A GRIEVANCE
APPEAL FORM FROM THE HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR. RETURN
THE COMPLETED FORM TO THE ATTENTION OF THE HEALTH SERVICE
ADMINISTRATOR. YOU MAY PLACE THE FORM IN THE SICK CALL
REQUEST BOX OR ...