Leonard Thomas v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., now known as TEHUM CARE SERVICES, INC.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 8, 20251
Decided July 31, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1275
LEONARD THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CORIZON HEALTH, INC., now known as TEHUM
CARE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, South Bend
Division.
No. 3:15-cv-00548-JVB-JEM
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen,
Judge.
O R D E R
Thomas v. Sevier, No. 22-2759 (7th Cir. Feb. 20, 2025) (nonprecedential
disposition), resolves most issues in Leonard Thomas’s suit, but not his claim against
Corizon Health, Inc., which was in bankruptcy reorganization. We moved the claim
against Corizon into a separate appeal (No. 25-1275) and directed the parties to file
1 This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure
6(b). We have unanimously agreed to decide this case without argument because the brief and record
adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the court.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-1275 Page 2
status reports so that we could proceed if the bankruptcy judge lifted the automatic
stay.
In May 2025 Corizon (now known as Tehum Care Services, Inc.) asked us to
dismiss the appeal. Tehum observed that the bankruptcy judge's plan (which was
confirmed on March 3, 2025) establishes multiple tracks for tort claims, and that persons
who do not opt into one of the tracks are assigned to the PI/WD Trust, which has been
funded with assets from the bankruptcy estate plus some other credits. Persons who
elect to proceed against the Trust, as well as those who do not make any election and so
are assigned to the Trust by default, are enjoined from pursuing litigation.
The bankruptcy court certified that all tort claimants, a set that includes Thomas,
had been served with copies of the papers establishing the options and explaining the
consequences of inaction. Thomas did not respond to this notice, nor did he ask the
district court to review the bankruptcy court’s order confirming the plan. Tehum
contends that Thomas therefore is covered by the injunction and cannot proceed with
this litigation.
Thomas replied that he has not received any of the forms for voting on the
bankruptcy court’s plan or opting into a track. This prompted us to ask Tehum for
further information, which it has supplied.
We are willing to suppose that problems in assuring reliable service in prison
may have affected Thomas. But Tehum maintains that, just to be safe, it sent copies of
the essential papers to Thomas, who acknowledged receipt. It may well be that Thomas
does not remember this and did not recognize the significance of the documents (he is
not a lawyer and lacks legal assistance). Still, the legal effect of bankruptcy judges’
orders does not depend on proof that claimants understand the meaning and
significance of the documents they receive. It is enough that the documents be received.
Thomas has asked us to recruit counsel for him, representing that he is unable to
grasp complex subjects. That may well be, but once the bankruptcy court’s deadline
passed it was too late for Thomas to act. He could have sought help (including an
extension of time) from the bankruptcy court or perhaps appealed the plan’s
confirmation and injunction to the district court, but he did not take either step.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1275 Page 3
Under the confirmed plan, Thomas must pursue his claim against the PI/WD
Trust. His appeal no longer is tenable, and No. 25-1275 is dismissed.

-- 3 of 3 --