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.

Quintana v. Scharffenberg

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 16, 2019

VICTOR QUINTANA, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. SCHARFFENBERG, Defendant.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED (ECF NO. 34)

         Victor Quintana (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding “against defendant Dr. Scharffenberg on Plaintiff's claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” (ECF No. 11, p. 7).

         On June 20, 2019, defendant Dr. Scharffenberg (“Defendant”) filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 34). On July 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition. (ECF No. 38). Defendant filed his reply on July 26, 2019. (ECF No. 39).

         Defendant's motion for summary judgment is now before the Court. For the reasons that follow, the Court will recommend that Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted.

         I. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM

         a. Summary of Plaintiff's Complaint

         Plaintiff was incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) at all times relevant to this case.

         Defendant is a medical doctor at SATF, and was Plaintiff's primary care physician at all times relevant to this case.

         Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from “severe pain in his neck and back, ” and that he informed Defendant of his pain “during appointments and for chronic care visits, for the last 16 months.” Plaintiff states that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's condition because he reviewed Plaintiff's medical records and possessed general knowledge of Plaintiff's medical history, but failed to investigate and adequately monitor Plaintiff's condition so that he could provide Plaintiff with effective treatment. Plaintiff claims that Defendant chose to ignore Plaintiff's complaints of pain, and failed to provide “medical treatment (providing pain medications)” for his pain.

         Plaintiff further claims that Defendant discontinued his medication for pain, and as of “today's date” Defendant had not ordered a reinstatement of Plaintiff's pain medication.

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's lack of treatment caused Plaintiff's condition to worsen, causing extreme pain in Plaintiff's neck and back.

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acted in conscious disregard of an excessive risk of harm to the health and safety of Plaintiff.

         Plaintiff alleges that the severe pain in his neck and back affected his daily activities, and that the lack of treatment exposed Plaintiff to “the risk of temporary and permanent damage.” Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant's deliberate delays in providing medical treatment for Plaintiff's pain and muscle cramps resulted in Plaintiff's muscles being weak.

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights because Defendant denied and delayed Plaintiff's access to medical treatment.

         In Plaintiff's exhibits, Plaintiff attached a 602 he filed, on which he alleged, among other things, that “Dr. Scharffenberg refused to acknowledge my dissability [sic] chronos, [or] examin [sic] the handball sized cervical disc protrusion on my neck that[']s causing severe pain.” (ECF No. 1, p. 16). Plaintiff also seems to have alleged that Defendant falsified a medical record. (Id.).

         b. Screening Order

         The Court screened Plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No. 11). The Court ordered that “[t]his action proceed against defendant Dr. Scharffenberg on Plaintiff's claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” (Id. at 7).

         II. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

         a. Defendant's Position

         Defendant moves for summary judgment “because the undisputed facts prove that he was not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs and/or is entitled to qualified immunity.” (ECF No. 34-1, p. 2). Defendant argues that “Plaintiff cannot meet either the objective or subjective component necessary to establish deliberate indifference against Dr. Scharffenberg.” (Id. at 7).

         Plaintiff “was receiving Oxcarbazepine for pain management” when he saw Defendant on November 3, 2016. (Id.). “In Dr. Scharffenberg's medical opinion, Oxcarbazepine was an appropriate medication to treat Plaintiff's neuropathic pain and Plaintiff was receiving an appropriate dosage. Dr. Scharffenberg reviewed Plaintiff's medical history and medications and performed a physical examination, which was unremarkable. Plaintiff was doing okay on his present medications, i.e., his vitals were normal and there was no indication that he was suffering any adverse reactions. Dr. Scharffenberg scheduled him for a follow-up in three to five months and did not discontinue Plaintiff's pain medication. Moreover, there is no record of Plaintiff submitting any health care service request forms to notify staff of any issues following this encounter, and Dr. Scharffenberg is unaware of Plaintiff submitting any such forms.” (Id.) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).

         “Dr. Scharffenberg saw Plaintiff again on April 19, 2017. Plaintiff was prescribed Oxcarbazepine for pain management. This time, Plaintiff complained of pain in his neck with certain twisting motions and numbness and tingling down his left arm with certain positions on his back. Plaintiff's physical examination was unremarkable. Dr. Scharffenberg encouraged Plaintiff to exercise by walking and offered him Tylenol for his neck pain, which he declined. Dr. Scharffenberg did not discontinue Plaintiff's pain medication. Moreover, there is no record of Plaintiff submitting any health care service request forms to notify staff of ...


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.