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.

Brown v. Chybowski

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

May 26, 2016

CHRISTOPHER BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN CHYBOWSKI, Defendant.

          DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 61)

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Christopher Brown is representing himself. On May 8, 2015, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed on a deliberate indifference claim against the defendant, a dentist at the Milwaukee County Jail.[1] Dkt. No. 33. On July 2, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 43), which the court denied on January 4, 2016 (Dkt. No. 60). On July 31, 2015, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 46), which the court denied without prejudice on January 4, 2016 (Dkt. No. 60). The defendant filed an amended motion for summary judgment on January 4, 2016. Dkt. No. 61. That motion is fully briefed and ready for a decision.

         I. FACTS[2]

         The plaintiff is suing Brian Chybowski, a dentist employed at the Milwaukee County Jail who treated the plaintiff while the plaintiff was incarcerated there. Dkt. No. 50 ¶40. The Milwaukee County Jail booked and medically screened the plaintiff on May 27, 2014. Id. ¶1. At that time, the plaintiff informed the nurse that he had no pain in his teeth or gums. Id. at ¶2.

         On June 12, 2014, the plaintiff requested to be seen for dental needs. Id. at ¶4. A nurse performed a dental screening the next day, and recommended that the dentist extract two teeth, numbers 19 and 31. Id. at ¶5, 6. Four days later, on June 17, 2014, the defendant examined the plaintiff. Id. at ¶7. The defendant took x-rays and confirmed that teeth 19 and 31 needed to be extracted. Id. at ¶8. The defendant also diagnosed a potential infection, placed the plaintiff on a routine course of antibiotics, and scheduled the plaintiff for an extraction of tooth 19 or tooth 31 on June 24, 2014. Id. at ¶10. On the scheduled day, the defendant extracted tooth 31 without significant complications. Id. at ¶11.

         On July 16, 2014, the plaintiff requested another dental appointment. Id. at ¶14. The defendant examined the plaintiff on July 17, 2014, and determined that the area from which tooth 31 had been extracted had healed properly. Id. at ¶16. The defendant then scheduled an extraction of tooth 19 for July 31, 2014. Id. at ¶17.

         On July 31, 2014, despite several attempts, the defendant was unable to numb the area of tooth 19. Id. at ¶18. The defendant canceled the extraction because the defendant believed that an infection in the area of tooth 19 was preventing the local anesthetic agents from taking effect. Id. at ¶19. The defendant prescribed additional antibiotics and pain medication with codeine to treat the infection. Id. at ¶20.

         The defendant examined the plaintiff again on August 12, 2014, but an x-ray confirmed the area of tooth 19 was still infected. Id. at ¶22, 23. The defendant ordered additional antibiotics, extending the course through August 30, 2014. Id. at ¶24. The defendant states that he anticipated extracting tooth 19 once the antibiotic therapy concluded. Id. at ¶25.

         On August 24, 2014, the plaintiff indicated via a written health care request form that he would like his antibiotics extended until the “oral surgeon” saw him. Dkt. No. 49-3 at 52. On September 2, 2014, the defendant extended the antibiotics through September 23, 2014. Dkt. No. 50 ¶26.

         On September 12 and September 24, the plaintiff submitted grievances complaining about having to wait so long for dental care. Dkt. No. 49-3 at 16, 21. He also submitted a dental request form. Id. at 50. On September 26, 2014, a nurse referred the plaintiff “to Dental ASAP.” Id. The defendant states that on September 30, 2014, in response to these complaints, he renewed the plaintiff’s prescription for antibiotics and requested a referral to an oral surgeon. Dkt. No. 50 ¶29. The oral surgeon referral request was approved that day. Id.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Summary Judgment Standard

         “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Ames v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 629 F.3d 665, 668 (7th Cir. 2011). “Material facts” are those under the applicable substantive law that “might affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute over ...


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.