United States District Court, D. Delaware
KEITH L. WOOLFORD, Plaintiff,
DR. LAWRENCE MCDONALD, et al., Defendants
Keith L. Woolford, Georgetown, Delaware, Pro se.
For Dr. Lawrence McDonald, Jill Moser, Mary Tolson, John Vanhoy, Richard Catts and Jeremy Knight, Defendants: Daniel A. Griffith, Esquire and Scott G. Wilcox, Esquire of Whiteford Taylor Preston, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware.
For Michael Deloy, Defendant: Michael F. McTaggart, Deputy Attorney General, State of Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware.
SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.
Keith L. Woolford (" plaintiff" ) is a sentenced inmate at the Sussex Correctional Institution (" SCI" ) in Georgetown, Delaware. On April 25, 2012, plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Dr. Lawrence McDonald (" McDonald" ), Richard Catts (" Catts" ), and Mary Tolson (" Tolson" ), seeking damages for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (D.I. 1; D.1. 3) Defendants are members of Correctional Care Solutions (" CCS" ), a medical contractor servicing the medical needs of inmates at SCI. The court initially dismissed plaintiff's medical need claims because plaintiff did " not indicate when the alleged acts took place," and " many of the allegations f[e]ll under the aegis of a medical malpractice/negligence claim, rather than deliberate indifference." (D.I. 7 at 6) Plaintiff was granted leave to amend such claims. ( Id. at 7)
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 13, 2012 against McDonald, Tolson, and Catts, as well as Jill Moser (" Moser" ), John Vanhoy (" Vanhoy" ), and Jeremy Knight (" Knight" ) (collectively, the " CCS defendants" ), and Michael Deloy (" Deloy" ) (collectively with the CCS defendants, the " defendants" ). (D.I. 8) On March 12, 2013, the court dismissed the amended complaint against the CSS defendants for failure of service. (D.I. 23) On April 11, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to alter judgment (D.I. 27), which the court construed as a motion for reconsideration and granted, reinstating the CCS defendants. (D.I. 30) The amended complaint was served upon the CCS defendants; on June 26, 2013, they answered such complaint and asserted defenses. (D.I. 38) On August 23, 2013, Deloy answered the amended complaint and asserted defenses. (D.I. 41) Also on August 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment (D.I. 40), which was denied. (D.I. 48) Presently before the court are motions for summary judgment filed separately by Deloy and the CCS defendants (D.I. 54; D.I. 65), as well as plaintiff's motions to compel discovery. (D.I. 73; D.I. 74) The court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
On June 3, 2011, plaintiff became a sentenced inmate at SCI. (D.I. 8 at ¶ 1) At all relevant times, Deloy was the bureau chief for the Delaware Department of Correction, and CCS served as the medical contractor servicing the medical needs of inmates at SCI. Upon incarceration at SCI, plaintiff notified the medical department of his kidney transplant, which he received in December 2007, and other medical conditions. ( Id.) Plaintiff is prescribed anti-rejection medication, which he is required to take daily for the remainder of his life. ( Id. at ¶ 2) Any lapse may cause plaintiff's body to reject or scar the transplant, which could result in renal failure. ( Id.)
Plaintiff has had an extensive medical history while incarcerated at SCI. He was first examined on June 8, 2011, and his medical records were consulted. (D.I. 67, ex. A at CCS-57, 63-65) He was then treated by Dr. McDonald in the chronic care facility of the prison infirmary on multiple occasions between May 31, 2012 and August 23, 2012. He was also seen by outside specialists on numerous occasions. In particular, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Pedro, a kidney specialist, six times between January 26, 2011 and August 2, 2013. Additionally, plaintiff visited Beebe Medical Center on June 14, 2012 due to complaints in the area of his kidney transplant ( id. at 175; D.I. 68, ex. A at 205), and was later seen by Dr. Haydu on May 31, 2013 and June 10, 2013 for follow-up visits. (D.I. 67, ex. A at 140-46) Diagnostic and laboratory tests were frequently conducted during plaintiff's medical visits. The CCS defendants regularly filled and refilled plaintiff's medication.
Plaintiff filed several medical grievances, including ones on July 26, 2011 (D.I. 8 at ¶ 3) and on April 13, 2012 (D.I. 79), stating tat the CCS defendants failed to provide him his anti-rejection medication on multiple occasions. Plaintiff also filed medical grievances complaining that the CCS defendants prescribed him medication that interfered with his anti-rejection medication and failed to schedule appointments with a kidney specialist for over a year after his incarceration. (D.I. 71 at 3) He further ...