Lyle F. Traxler v. Eric Nelson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 28, 2026*
Decided May 1, 2026
Before
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
REBECCA TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1894
LYLE F. TRAXLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ERIC NELSON,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 22-cv-0760-bhl
Brett H. Ludwig,
Judge.
O R D E R
Lyle Traxler sued Dr. Eric Nelson, alleging that he was deliberately indifferent
when he recommended amputation to treat a disease in Traxler’s leg. See 42 U.S.C.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record
adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the
court. FED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 25-1894 Page 2
§ 1983. The district court entered summary judgment for Dr. Nelson. We affirm the
judgment.
We recount the facts in the light most favorable to Traxler, the party opposing
summary judgment, and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. See Riley v.
Waterman, 126 F.4th 1287, 1295 (7th Cir. 2025). Traxler, who was incarcerated at
Waupun Correctional Center, reported pain in his right calf in October 2020. Two
months later, a nurse noted that the front of his calf had thickening and hardening soft
tissue and was at risk for infection. Traxler has diabetes, meaning his wounds are
vulnerable to infection. Traxler’s wound ultimately became infected and, despite a
year’s worth of treatment by prison and hospital providers, it did not heal. By October
2021, Traxler had an open wound in his leg measuring 4.5 by 5.7 by 9.5 centimeters and
revealing his tibia.
On October 1, 2021, a surgeon performed a biopsy of Traxler’s exposed bone. It
showed that Traxler had osteomyelitis, a serious infection that can spread throughout
the body.
Traxler then saw Dr. Karen Reynolds,† who asked Dr. Nelson, an orthopedic
surgeon, to look at Traxler’s wound and provide an informal opinion. Dr. Reynolds
informed Dr. Nelson that the biopsy revealed osteomyelitis in Traxler’s tibia. Dr. Nelson
did not review any of Traxler’s medical records. Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Nelson then
informed Traxler that, because his wound would likely never heal, he could either live
with the chronic wound for the rest of his life or undergo a below-the-knee amputation.
Dr. Nelson recommended amputation. Dr. Reynolds and the hospital’s physician
overseeing Traxler’s care agreed. Traxler states that when he requested replacing the
bone with a steel rod as an alternative to amputation, Dr. Nelson ignored him.
Based on his consultation with Dr. Nelson and Dr. Reynolds, Traxler consented
to an amputation procedure. He signed a form that authorized Dr. Nelson to amputate
his lower leg. The form stated that Traxler understood the “available alternatives” and
that he had “all of the information about the procedure” that he wanted.
† Dr. Reynolds was one of five original defendants to this lawsuit. The district court dismissed
the claims against Dr. Reynolds at screening, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the other defendants settled.
Traxler appeals only the summary-judgment order in favor of Dr. Nelson.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 25-1894 Page 3
Dr. Nelson amputated Traxler’s lower right leg a month later. The surgery went
without complication, and the pathology results confirmed the presence of chronic
osteomyelitis in his tibia. Traxler met with Dr. Nelson three times after surgery. On one
of these visits, Dr. Nelson noted that Traxler was experiencing his best-case scenario.
Traxler sued Dr. Nelson, alleging two theories of how Dr. Nelson was
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when he recommended amputation.
See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, Traxler argued that Dr. Nelson did not review Traxler’s
medical records before recommending amputation. Second, Traxler asserted that
Dr. Nelson did not recommend an alternative to amputation, such as replacing the
infected tibia with a steel rod.
The district court granted Dr. Nelson’s motion for summary judgment. It first
concluded that Dr. Nelson’s failure to review Traxler’s medical records was not
constitutionally problematic because nothing in the record suggested that Dr. Nelson
should not have relied on Dr. Reynolds’s summary of Traxler’s condition and
treatment. Dr. Nelson also personally examined Traxler’s wound, so the fact that he did
not review Traxler’s medical records did not render his recommendation unfounded.
The district court next determined that Traxler did not show that no minimally
competent professional would omit recommending a steel rod as a treatment option.
Rather, the undisputed evidence showed that two other doctors agreed with
Dr. Nelson’s options: live with the wound or amputate.
On appeal, Traxler contends that the district court erred because the evidence
shows that Dr. Nelson did not rely on his medical judgment when he failed to
recommend alternative procedures like removing portions of the infected bone or
replacing the infected tibia with a steel rod. To prevail against Dr. Nelson, Traxler must
show that Dr. Nelson consciously disregarded a substantial risk of serious medical
harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 839 (1994); Dean v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
18 F.4th 214, 241 (7th Cir. 2021). A jury can infer deliberate indifference when a
treatment decision is “so far afield of accepted professional standards as to raise the
inference that it was not actually based on a medical judgment.” Dean, 18 F.4th at 241
(citation omitted). “But where the evidence shows that a decision was based on medical
judgment, a jury may not find deliberate indifference, even if other professionals would
have handled the situation differently.” Id.
Traxler asserts that Dr. Nelson did not rely on his medical judgment because he
did not review Traxler’s medical records before recommending amputation. But there is

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 25-1894 Page 4
no dispute that Dr. Nelson knew Traxler’s condition and was aware that he had
osteomyelitis. Dr. Nelson spoke with Dr. Reynolds and looked at Traxler’s wound
himself. Dr. Nelson knew the wound was unlikely to heal and the osteomyelitis could
spread beyond his tibia. Dr. Nelson’s recommendation was based on his personal
evaluation of Traxler’s circumstances, a clear exercise of medical judgment. See id.
at 242.
Traxler also argues that Dr. Nelson was deliberately indifferent because he did
not recommend all available treatment options for osteomyelitis, such as surgery to
remove the infected bone or a procedure to replace his tibia with a steel rod. But Traxler
points to no evidence that Dr. Nelson consciously omitted these options despite
knowing they were the best treatment for Traxler. See id. at 243. Rather, Dr. Nelson
attested that he recommended amputation for Traxler because it both removed the
infected bone and prevented the infection from spreading. Further, two other doctors—
including the one treating Traxler throughout his year-long wound—also
recommended amputation because the infection was non-healing and could spread.
And even if one doctor had recommended an alternative procedure, nothing in the
record suggests that no minimally competent medical professional would have
attempted to prevent the spread of a serious disease in an at-risk patient through
amputation, which, as Dr. Nelson attested, and Traxler did not dispute, is a recognized
treatment for osteomyelitis. See Knight v. Grossman, 942 F.3d 336, 341 (7th Cir. 2019).
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --