DocketNumber: 21-10923
Filed Date: 8/15/2022
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/15/2022
USCA11 Case: 21-10923 Date Filed: 08/15/2022 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10923 ____________________ STACY ANTONIO SCOTT, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CORIZON HEALTH, INC., CENDORION, WARDEN, et al., Defendants, DONALD L. PERRY, Correctional Officer Sergeant, JEREMIAH BRASWELL, Correctional Officer, USCA11 Case: 21-10923 Date Filed: 08/15/2022 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 21-10923 ASBELTI LLORENS, Primary Physician, DEBRA PHILLIPS, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-00010-GRJ ____________________ Before JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER,* District Judge. PER CURIAM: Stacy Scott appeals from an order of the district court which enforced his settlement agreement with two defendants—Correc- tional Officers Donald Perry and Jeremiah Braswell—and granted summary judgment in favor of two other defendants—Nurse Debra Phillips and Dr. Asbelti Llorens. Following oral argument and a review of the record, we affirm. * The Honorable Harvey Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Mid- dle District of Florida, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 21-10923 Date Filed: 08/15/2022 Page: 3 of 4 21-10923 Opinion of the Court 3 Citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co.,511 U.S. 375
, 378–80 (1994), Scott argues the district court lacked jurisdic- tion to enforce the settlement agreement. His reliance on Kokko- nen, however, is misplaced. Kokkonen holds that a federal district court does not have inherent power to enforce a settlement agree- ment following dismissal of the underlying action. Seeid.
Here, the district court enforced the settlement agreement while the ac- tion was still pending, and our cases hold that a district court retains jurisdiction in that scenario. See Kent v. Baker,815 F.2d 1395
, 1398–400 (11th Cir. 1987); Cia Anon Venezolana De Navegacion v. Harris,374 F.2d 33
, 35 (5th Cir. 1967). 1 As for Scott’s deliberate indifference claims against Dr. Llorens, we agree with the district court’s grant of summary judg- ment. There are situations in which the denial of pain medication for a serious medical condition can constitute deliberate indiffer- ence. See Dadd v. Anoka Cnty.,827 F.3d 749
, 757 (8th Cir. 2016). But, after Scott complained about the prescribed Ibuprofen, both Dr. Llorens and Dr. Carlos Esquivia—the independent orthopedic specialist—prescribed him Naproxen (though Dr. Llorens pre- scribed it combined with Excedrin) for his pain. And Scott has not explained what other medications Dr. Llorens should have 1 Decisions of the Fifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981, are binding prec- edent on this Court. See Bonner v. City of Prichard,661 F.2d 1206
(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). USCA11 Case: 21-10923 Date Filed: 08/15/2022 Page: 4 of 4 4 Opinion of the Court 21-10923 prescribed for him. Under the circumstances, Dr. Llorens did not act with deliberate indifference. See Adams v. Poag,61 F.3d 1537
, 1547 (11th Cir. 1995) (explaining generally a “failure to administer stronger medication” “is a medical judgment”). Dr. Llorens’ decision to send Scott to Dr. Esquivia some three weeks after the injury also did not amount to deliberate in- difference. Dr. Llorens ordered an x-ray for Scott three days after seeing him, and that x-ray showed a minimally-displaced fracture and a non-displaced fracture. Five days after the x-ray was taken, Dr. Llorens referred Scott to Dr. Esquivia (who saw him two weeks later). Even if, as Dr. Esquivia told Scott, Dr. Llorens had misdiag- nosed the fracture as routine, that mistake at most amounted to negligence. See Rogers v. Evans,792 F.2d 1052
, 1058 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Whether an instance of medical misdiagnosis resulted from deliberate indifference or negligence is a factual question requiring exploration by expert witnesses.”). Finally, we reject Scott’s challenge to the grant of summary judgment in favor of Nurse Phillips. Scott says that he was not re- quired to pay for the medical records he requested, but he cites no authority which supports his argument. Under the relevant stat- ute, copies of medical records shall be provided within 10 business days of a request “at a reasonable charge,”Fla. Stat. § 766.204
(1), and here Scott did not pay the charge of 15 cents per page. AFFIRMED.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America , 114 S. Ct. 1673 ( 1994 )
Cia Anon Venezolana De Navegacion v. Frank L. Harris and ... , 374 F.2d 33 ( 1967 )
Ernest W. Kent v. James Baker, Iii, Secretary of the ... , 815 F.2d 1395 ( 1987 )
Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, Alabama , 661 F.2d 1206 ( 1981 )