Elbert Johnson v. Sanjay Razdan , 564 F. App'x 481 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-11697 Date Filed: 04/30/2014 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11697
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-21118-FAM
ELBERT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SANJAY RAZDAN,
Defendant-Appellee,
J. DWARES, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 30, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11697 Date Filed: 04/30/2014 Page: 2 of 10
Elbert Johnson, an inmate at Dade Correctional Institution, appeals the
district judge’s granting summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for
Dr. Sanjay Razdan. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Between October 2008 and November 2009, several medical professionals,
including Dr. Razdan, a urologist, recommended Johnson undergo a prostate
biopsy, because of significantly elevated prostate-specific-antigen levels, potential
indicators of prostate cancer. Johnson refused a biopsy for several months, since
the result of a previous prostate biopsy had been negative for cancer. After
November 2009, Johnson agreed to a second biopsy, and, in May 2010, Dr.
Razdan performed a transrectal ultrasound guided (“TRUS”) biopsy of Johnson’s
prostate, the result of which again was negative.
Following the TRUS biopsy, Johnson experienced bleeding, pain, and
several episodes of serious urinary blockage. In June 2010, a Foley catheter1 was
used to relieve Johnson’s voiding and retention issues. When Johnson again
experienced urinary retention in July 2010, Dr. Razdan inserted a suprapubic
catheter2 to allow Johnson to void urine. The following month, Johnson again had
trouble urinating. To relieve a constriction of the urethra and prostate around the
1
A Foley catheter is a catheter with a retaining balloon. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
293 (26th ed. 1995).
2
A suprapubic catheter drains urine from one’s bladder through an incision in the
abdomen. See www.nlm.nih.gov.
2
Case: 13-11697 Date Filed: 04/30/2014 Page: 3 of 10
bladder, Dr. Razdan performed a Holmium Laser Enucleation and Ablation of the
Prostate (“HoLEAP”) and removed part of Johnson’s prostate.
In June 2011, Johnson filed an amended § 1983 complaint against Dr.
Razdan and alleged Eighth Amendment violations. Between May and November
2009, he stated he had refused a second biopsy several times, including on three
occasions when he was taken to Dr. Razdan’s office. After his November 2009
refusal, Dr. Razdan told him his return visits had caused Dr. Razdan to lose
$10,000. Johnson alleged Dr. Razdan performed the biopsy “manual[ly]” in a
room outside of a hospital and claimed he was not “cleaned out” or administered
any pain medication before the procedure. R. at 61. He asserted he was in good
health until the prostate biopsy performed by Dr. Razdan, and he has suffered
permanent damage, because of the unnecessary biopsy, Dr. Razdan’s sub-standard
procedures, and deliberate indifference.
Following discovery, Dr. Razdan moved for summary judgment and argued
no competent evidence suggested he acted with deliberate indifference or
Johnson’s alleged injury was caused by his deliberate indifference. In support of
his motion, Dr. Razdan submitted a statement of facts supported by (1) a transcript
of Johnson’s deposition; (2) several of Johnson’s medical records; (3) an affidavit
by Dr. Razdan in which he stated his background and discussed Johnson’s medical
history, the necessity of the second biopsy, and Johnson’s treatments; and (4) an
3
Case: 13-11697 Date Filed: 04/30/2014 Page: 4 of 10
affidavit by Dr. Marshall Kaplan, which supported Dr. Razdan’s recommendation
that Johnson undergo a second biopsy and the TRUS Biopsy.
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) and
recommended granting Dr. Razdan summary judgment. The magistrate judge
concluded Johnson had satisfied the objective component of his Eighth
Amendment claim, but Johnson had not satisfied the subjective component,
because he had not shown Dr. Razdan had acted with deliberate indifference to
Johnson’s medical needs. The magistrate judge determined Johnson’s belief that
the TRUS biopsy was unwarranted and had caused his subsequent medical
conditions was contradicted by the undisputed record. The district judge adopted
the R&R and granted summary judgment to Dr. Razdan.
On appeal, Johnson argues the district judge erroneously concluded he had
produced no medical evidence showing a biopsy of Johnson’s prostate performed
by Dr. Razdan had caused Johnson to suffer any permanent injuries. Johnson
contends the unnecessary biopsy, which he had refused multiple times, had caused
urinary blockage that permanently had damaged his organs. Johnson further
argues Dr. Razdan failed to obtain his informed consent for the biopsy and
following procedures.
4
Case: 13-11697 Date Filed: 04/30/2014 Page: 5 of 10
II. DISCUSSION
We review a district judge’s granting summary judgment de novo, and we
consider the facts and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1303 (11th Cir.
2009). Summary judgment is appropriate when 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). Mere conclusions and unsupported factual
allegations are insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Ellis v.
England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
To prevail in a § 1983 civil rights action, a plaintiff must prove an
affirmative causal connection between the defendant’s acts or omissions and the
alleged constitutional deprivation. Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 F.3d 988, 999 (11th
Cir. 1995). The Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs of prisoners. Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir.
2011) (per curiam). To prevail on a claim of inadequate medical treatment, a
prisoner must establish (1) an objectively serious medical need, (2) deliberate
indifference to that need on the part of the defendant, and (3) an injury caused by
the defendant’s wrongful conduct. Goebert v. Lee Cnty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1326
(11th Cir. 2007).3 To establish deliberate indifference, Johnson must show
3
In Goebert, we distinguished between the analysis for serious medical needs and delay
5
Case: 13-11697 Date Filed: 04/30/2014 Page: 6 of 10
(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm and (2) disregard of that risk
(3) by conduct that is more than gross negligence. Id. at 1326-27. A difference in
medical opinion alone does not constitute deliberate indifference so long as the
treatment provided is minimally adequate. Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495,
1504-05 (11th Cir. 1991). Similarly, incidents of malpractice alone are insufficient
to establish Eighth Amendment violations. Id. at 1505.
We generally will not consider a legal issue that was not presented to the
trial judge. Slater v. Energy Servs. Grp. Int’l, Inc., 634 F.3d 1326, 1332 (11th Cir.
2001). A plaintiff may not raise a new claim for the first time in a brief opposing
summary judgment. Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1313
(11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Although pro se briefs are to be construed liberally,
a pro se litigant who offers no substantive argument on an issue in his initial brief
abandons that issue on appeal. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.
2008) (per curiam).
in care for prisoner cases. In contrast to medical care or treatment, as in this case, the analysis is
different for prisoner cases involving delay in care:
In cases that turn on the delay in providing medical care, rather than the type of
medical care provided, we have set out some factors to guide our analysis. Where
the prisoner has suffered increased physical injury due to the delay, we have
consistently considered: (1) the seriousness of the medical need; (2) whether the
delay worsened the medical condition; and (3) the reason for the delay.
Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1327 (emphasis added).
6
Case: 13-11697 Date Filed: 04/30/2014 Page: 7 of 10
Johnson’s claims regarding informed consent are not properly before us,
because (1) he raised the lack of informed consent regarding the HoLEAP
procedure for the first time in his opposition to Dr. Razdan’s summary judgment
motion, see Gilmour, 382 F.3d at 1313, and (2) he raised the lack of informed
consent concerning the other procedures performed by Dr. Razdan for the first time
on appeal, see Slater, 634 F.3d at 1332. By failing to state any arguments
supporting his passing reference to various injuries allegedly caused by the
suprapubic catheter, Johnson has abandoned them, regardless of whether he
sufficiently presented those issues to the district judge. See Timson, 518 F.3d at
874.
Johnson’s remaining Eighth Amendment claims essentially implicate two
separate acts by Dr. Razdan: (1) the recommendation Johnson undergo a second
biopsy, which Johnson asserts was unnecessary; and (2) the manner in which Dr.
Razdan performed the biopsy. Concerning Dr. Razdan’s performance of the
biopsy, Johnson complains about both immediate pain suffered during the biopsy
and various medical ailments that followed it.
Regarding the recommendation that a second biopsy be performed, Johnson
has shown nothing in the record, other than his own assertions, sufficient to
establish a genuine issue of material fact for his Eighth Amendment claims. Dr.
Razdan submitted his own affidavit explaining his medical opinion that a second
7
Case: 13-11697 Date Filed: 04/30/2014 Page: 8 of 10
biopsy was warranted. He also provided the affidavit of Dr. Kaplan, another
medical expert, who concurred with Dr. Razdan’s recommendation. Johnson’s
allegation that Dr. Razdan accused Johnson of causing Dr. Razdan to lose $10,000
by refusing treatment, even if believed, would be insufficient to refute the expert
opinions of two doctors that the recommendation of a second biopsy was medically
sound. Consequently, Johnson’s challenge to Dr. Razdan’s recommendation,
including Johnson’s assertion that the second biopsy was unnecessary, amounts to
nothing more than a difference in opinion, which is insufficient to show deliberate
indifference. See Harris, 941 F.2d at 1504-05.
Johnson also has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding
whether Dr. Razdan’s performance during the biopsy amounted to more than gross
negligence. 4 Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1327. As an initial matter, nothing in the
record, except for Johnson’s own conclusory assertions, supports his contention the
biopsy performed by Dr. Razdan was not a TRUS biopsy that was performed
“manual[ly].” 5 See R. at 61.
4
“Although we have occasionally stated, in dicta, that a claim of deliberate indifference
requires proof of ‘more than mere negligence,’ McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th
Cir. 1999), our earlier holding in Cottrell [v. Caldwell], 85 F.3d [1480,] 1490 [(11th Cir. 1996)],
made clear that, after Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994), a claim of
deliberate indifference requires proof of more than gross negligence.” Townsend v. Jefferson
Cnty., 601 F.3d 1152, 1158 (11th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added).
5
Aside from his conclusory allegations that Dr. Razdan performed the biopsy in a way
that was a “less[er] and easier procedure . . . without utilizing the hospital equipment,” R. at 410,
Johnson has not explained the difference between a biopsy that is performed “manually” and one
that is not performed “manually.”
8
Case: 13-11697 Date Filed: 04/30/2014 Page: 9 of 10
Dr. Razdan’s affidavit states that nothing in Johnson’s medical records
suggests his performance of the biopsy was inappropriate or deviated from the
applicable standard of care. Dr. Kaplan similarly attested that review of Johnson’s
medical records—including ultrasound pictures taken during the biopsy—did not
show Dr. Razdan performed the biopsy improperly or in a manner designed to
cause unnecessary pain to Johnson. Moreover, both doctors agreed that some
temporary pain during the procedure and bleeding for a few weeks following the
procedure are common. Given the undisputed expert testimony regarding the pain
and bleeding that are common with a TRUS biopsy, even when viewed in the light
most favorable to Johnson, Mann, 588 F.3d at 1303, the record does not support a
finding that Dr. Razdan performed Johnson’s biopsy in a manner that constituted
more than gross negligence. Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1327. For Johnson’s medical
treatment to have amounted to a constitutional violation, it would have had to have
been “so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience
or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Harris, 941 F.2d at 1505 (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
Johnson has not identified witnesses, whom he claims should have been
questioned regarding his condition after the biopsy. He also has not explained how
any such witnesses would have shown Dr. Razdan’s care was more than grossly
negligent or how the biopsy caused his medical ailments. Aside from Johnson’s
9
Case: 13-11697 Date Filed: 04/30/2014 Page: 10 of 10
own conclusory assertions, the only evidence of causation in the record is the
temporal proximity between the scheduled biopsy and the medical ailments that
followed. Consequently, Johnson has not shown genuine issues of material fact
existed with respect to his various medical ailments following the TRUS biopsy.
Dr. Razdan, however, presented undisputed expert testimony that he
performed the biopsy appropriately and within the applicable standard of care. Dr.
Razdan and Dr. Kaplan agreed some of the symptoms Johnson experienced
following his biopsy were common. Even assuming some causal connection
existed between the TRUS biopsy and Johnson’s subsequent medical conditions,
the record does not support a finding that Dr. Razdan’s care was anything other
than well within the range of reasonable medical care and certainly not more than
grossly negligent. Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1327. Therefore, the district judge
properly granted summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
10