Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ploof v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Arizona

December 23, 2014

Jonathan Michael Ploof, Plaintiff,
v.
Charles L. Ryan, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.

Plaintiff Jonathan Michael Ploof, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, brought this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 61). He raises claims regarding alleged failure to provide him with adequate healthcare and deliberate indifference to the fact that the failure to do so has resulted in significant injury to his heart. On screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff adequately stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Director Charles L. Ryan, Facility Health Administrator and Contract Monitor Matthew A. Musson, and Division Director and Health Services Program Evaluation Administrator Richard Pratt and directed them to answer the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 76).

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion for Emergency Mandatory Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(A)(2)(3)" (Doc. 89) (the "Motion").

I. Plaintiff's Motion

Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to immediately schedule Plaintiff for an appointment with a cardiac specialist and order that the specialist "freely explain past and present practitioner consultation reports that remain missing and/or unexplained to Plaintiff." (Doc. 89 at 1). Plaintiff further requests that the Court order Defendants to "immediately authorize cardiac doctors of record to review existing reports and explain [Plaintiff's] cardiac condition." ( Id. at 2). Plaintiff also requests that the Court order Defendants to "comply with all recommendations from the consulting cardiologist as well as all existing cardiologist reports."[1]

To support his Motion, Plaintiff alleges as follows: Defendants have "failed to take reasonable measures to abate the impermiss[i]ble risk of harm [Plaintiff] face[s] without proper timely consultation and treatment from cardiac doctors for a known serious heart condition." ( Id. ). Under Defendants' policy, when inmates are referred to an outside specialist, the specialist is directed not to inform the inmate of any recommended treatment, hospitalization, recommended tests or treatment. ( Id. at 3-4). On May 20, 2014, Plaintiff asked Dr. Hussan Makki, a cardiologist, about the doctor's findings as to Plaintiff's condition and Dr. Makki told Plaintiff to discuss the condition with his doctor. ( Id. at 4). Plaintiff has "consistently" drafted Health Needs Requests (HNRs) asking for review of the doctor's records and to receive a consultation, but unit providers have indicated that they are attempting to locate the reports from his May 20, 2014 visit. ( Id. at 5).

On June 12, 2014, Kent Ainslie, a physician's assistant (PA), told Plaintiff that his condition is worse and Plaintiff has a Grade 3 defect, but noted that he could not locate the report and recommendations for treatment. ( Id. ). Plaintiff's treatment has been delayed in the past due to misplaced reports. ( Id. ). Plaintiff alleges that he needs proper medical care and treatment for his "life threatening heart condition."

In Response, Defendants present the following evidence:

On March 18, 2014, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Candipan, a cardiologist at St. Luke's Hospital, who recommended that Plaintiff have a Lexican stress test done in the "near future, " that Plaintiff continue his current medications, and that Plaintiff be given a follow-up in the clinic after the stress test was completed. (Doc. 113-1 at 8). On May 20, 2014, Plaintiff underwent a Lexiscan Nuclear Stress Test with Dr. Hassan Makki at St. Luke's Hospital. ( Id. at 10). On June 12, 2014, PA Ainslie noted in Plaintiff's medical records that Plaintiff had a follow-up cardiology consult on May 20, 2014 and that only a partial report was received. ( Id. at 14). PA Ainslie further noted that the medical records librarian faxed a request for the full report and Plaintiff would be seen as soon as possible after the report was received. ( Id. ).

On July 10, 2014, PA Salyer reviewed the results of the May 20, 2014 Lexiscan Nuclear Stress Test. ( Id. at 10). The results indicated that the EKG portion of the test was negative and the radiology portion of the test indicated that Plaintiff has a Grade 3 fixed defect of the left ventricle with no evidence of ischemia. ( Id. at 17-18). The test also showed that Plaintiff's ejection fraction is less than 46% and Dr. Hegmann, a Corizon physician, asserts that although 46% is below normal ejection fraction, it is not life threatening. ( Id. at 4, ¶ 10). PA Salyer also noted that Plaintiff had submitted an HNR regarding chest pain, that an appointment was to be scheduled with a health care provider for counseling and chronic chest pain management, that Plaintiff was to have his vital signs taken and an EKG conducted by a nurse, and that a healthcare provider was to be called if Plaintiff's results were abnormal. ( Id. at 18).

On July 31, 2014, Plaintiff was seen by Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP) McKamey for complaints of left knee pain and, at that time, McKamey went over his lab stress test reports with him, and requested a cardiology consult. ( Id. at 20).

Based on this evidence, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Motion should be denied because he has presented no evidence that he will suffer harm without a court order.

In Reply, Plaintiff presents evidence that Defendant Ryan granted Plaintiff's appeal as to his grievance that he was not receiving follow-up from staff upon return from offsite medical appointments and that he had not received the results of the 5/20/14 Lexiscan. (Doc. 115 at 8-9). Plaintiff denies that that FNP McKamey reviewed his lab stress test reports with him. (Doc. 115 at 2). Plaintiff also ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.