Douglas E. Mallett v. Trisha Anderson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 1, 2024 *
Decided July 2, 2024
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-3412
DOUGLAS E. MALLETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TRISHA ANDERSON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 19-cv-292-wmc
William M. Conley,
Judge.
O R D E R
Douglas Mallett, a Wisconsin prisoner, appeals the summary judgment on his
claims that Trisha Anderson and Kristine DeYoung, nurses at Columbia Correctional
Institution, were deliberately indifferent to his wrist injury. Because, on this record, no
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 23-3412 Page 2
reasonable jury could find that Anderson or DeYoung violated Mallett’s rights under
the Eighth Amendment, we affirm.
We construe the record in favor of Mallett, the non-movant. See Arce v. Wexford
Health Sources Inc., 75 F.4th 673, 678 (7th Cir. 2023). While incarcerated at Columbia,
Mallett injured his left wrist while playing basketball. That day—June 7, 2016—
Anderson, a nurse in the Health Services Unit (HSU), received a call from a staff
member who told her that Mallett was hit in the groin but refused medical treatment.
(Mallet asserts that he had told this staff member that he had hurt his wrist.) Anderson
recommended that Mallett submit a request to the HSU if his condition changed.
Mallett submitted a request later that day, stating that he might have fractured his wrist
and that he did not refuse medical attention.
On June 8, before the HSU received Mallett’s request, an officer in Mallett’s
housing unit called the HSU to report that Mallett believed he had broken his wrist the
previous day. Because the HSU had not yet received Mallett’s request, the nurse on
duty asked to speak with Mallett over the phone to triage his complaint. The officer told
the nurse that he would call the HSU back when Mallett reported to the dayroom, but
the HSU did not receive another call from the officer or Mallett. Eventually, the HSU
received Mallett’s request from June 7. Another nurse triaged it on the morning of
June 9, scheduling Mallett to be seen by Anderson the next day.
Mallett saw Anderson for his wrist injury on June 10. According to medical
records, Mallett felt a throbbing pain in his wrist after he fell and landed on it. At the
appointment, Anderson noted that Mallett’s injured wrist had minimal swelling and a
full range of motion, although Mallett was resistant to the range-of-motion testing.
Further, Mallett’s wrist did not exhibit crepitus (a snap, crackle, or pop sound in the
joint), bruising, or deformation. Anderson therefore recommended Mallett treat his
wrist injury with PRICE (protection, rest, ice, compression, and elevation). However,
Mallett did not want this treatment and expressed concern about why he was not seen
earlier. Anderson told him that he was seen after he sent his request to the HSU.
Unsatisfied, Mallett abruptly ended the appointment. Assessing that Mallett’s injury
was a likely sprain or strain, Anderson indicated in Mallett’s medical chart that no
follow-up was necessary, but she advised him as he was leaving to submit another
request to the HSU if his wrist did not improve.
Mallett submitted another request to the HSU on June 19. (Others he sent in the
meantime, on June 17, do not relate to the defendants here.) He stated that he was still
experiencing extreme pain, had a lump on his left wrist, and did not have full function

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 23-3412 Page 3
of his left hand or wrist. The HSU received his request on June 21, and DeYoung
scheduled Mallett to be seen by a nurse the next day. This nurse did not identify any
deformities in Mallett’s wrist, but at his insistence, she scheduled him to be seen by a
doctor. On June 28, Mallett saw the doctor, who observed mild swelling in Mallett’s
wrist; he advised Mallett to take acetaminophen for 30 days and ordered an x-ray. The
radiologist who interpreted the x-ray stated that there were no signs of an acute fracture
or dislocation, but the doctor later noted that the x-ray seemed to show some bone chips
(assuming that Mallett’s interpretation of the doctor’s nearly illegible writing is correct).
Mallett sued Anderson, DeYoung, and several other medical providers, guards,
and grievance officials at the prison, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to
his wrist injury in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The district court screened Mallett’s complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, allowing
him to proceed on Eighth Amendment claims against the defendants who were
involved in his medical care. Some defendants then obtained summary judgment
because Mallett failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claims
against them. Later, the judge entered summary judgment on the merits for Anderson
and DeYoung. Neither party disputed that Mallett’s wrist injury was objectively
serious, but the judge ruled that Mallett presented no evidence from which a jury could
find that Anderson or DeYoung was deliberately indifferent to it.
Mallett appeals and challenges the summary judgment ruling on his claims
against Anderson and DeYoung, a decision that we review de novo. Arce, 75 F.4th at
678. He argues that a reasonable jury could find that Anderson and DeYoung were
deliberately indifferent to his wrist injury and that the judge disregarded evidence that
Mallett fractured his wrist on June 7. Under the Eighth Amendment, nurses like
Anderson and DeYoung may be held liable for deliberate indifference if they knew
about and yet consciously disregarded a serious medical condition. Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); White v. Woods, 48 F.4th 853, 862 (7th Cir. 2022).
Here, no rational jury could find that the nurses’ responses to Mallett’s wrist
injury rose to the level of deliberate indifference. Mallett primarily argues that they
inexplicably delayed treatment, a circumstance that can support an inference of
deliberate indifference. See Thomas v. Martija, 991 F.3d 763, 768 (7th Cir. 2021).
But Mallet’s theory of unlawful delay in treatment rests on a premise that lacks
support in the record; namely, that he fractured his wrist on June 7, and that this is
confirmed by the “bone chips” visible in the x-ray taken three weeks later. All the
medical evidence in the record, however, points to a wrist strain or sprain. The

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 23-3412 Page 4
radiology report revealed no fractures. And the record is completely devoid of medical
explanation for the bone fragments, so there is no support for Mallet’s assumption that
they were caused by an acute fracture on June 7, let alone one that necessitated
immediate treatment with something other than the PRICE protocol.
Even if we accepted that different treatment was called for at an earlier time,
Mallett lacks evidence that either nurse was responsible for any delays. See Walker v.
Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954, 964 (7th Cir. 2019) (plaintiff must show that
defendant’s actions or inactions caused delay in treatment). First, Anderson was
unaware of Mallett’s wrist injury until his appointment on June 10: On June 7, she was
misinformed about the nature of his injury, and another nurse processed his request to
the HSU on June 9. As to Mallett’s argument that Anderson was responsible for the
delay between his June 10 appointment with her and his eventual doctor’s appointment
and x-ray, the evidence shows that Mallett declined PRICE treatment, left the
appointment before Anderson finished her evaluation, and waited several days to
submit another request to the HSU. None of this suggests that Anderson was
responsible for delaying Mallett’s receipt of treatment.
And to the extent that recommending PRICE treatment delayed Mallett’s receipt
of more aggressive treatment (the doctor prescribed medication), Anderson still cannot
be liable unless recommending this treatment represented “so significant a departure
from accepted professional standards or practices that it calls into question whether
[she] was actually exercising [her] professional judgment.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403,
409 (7th Cir. 2014). Mallett insists that Anderson should have referred him to a doctor
immediately, but he “is not entitled to demand specific care.” See Walker v. Wexford
Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954, 965 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d
742, 754 (7th Cir. 2011)). Anderson exercised professional judgment by choosing among
treatment options for Mallett’s injured wrist, which she did not believe was fractured.
See id.
As to DeYoung, Mallett failed to produce evidence to support his argument that
she inexplicably delayed treatment for his wrist because she did not immediately
prescribe him pain medication when she received his health-services request about
wrist pain. He points to DeYoung’s statement that her role as a nurse generally involves
management of medications. But DeYoung’s involvement in Mallett’s medical care was
minimal: She responded to his request to the HSU and scheduled his appointment with
another nurse for the next day. Mallett did not produce any evidence that DeYoung had
the authority to prescribe medication at all, or to otherwise intervene in Mallett’s care.

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 23-3412 Page 5
See Machicote v. Roethlisberger, 969 F.3d 822, 828 (7th Cir. 2020). And instead of
supporting the claim of delay, the evidence suggests that DeYoung facilitated Mallett’s
treatment by responding to his request and quickly scheduling his appointment.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --