Anthony Morehead v. Angela Thompson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 16, 2024*
Decided February 16, 2024
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1907
ANTHONY MOREHEAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANGELA THOMPSON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 20-cv-1190-bhl
Brett H. Ludwig,
Judge.
O R D E R
Anthony Morehead, a Wisconsin prisoner whose Achilles injury was treated
without surgery, appeals the summary judgment decision rejecting his claim that his
medical providers acted with deliberate indifference toward his medical needs. See 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Because the district court was correct that no reasonable jury could find
any defendant deliberately indifferent, we affirm.
* 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. F ED. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 5 --

No. 23-1907 Page 2
We present the facts from the record in the light most favorable to Morehead and
draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. See Donald v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
982 F.3d 451, 457 (7th Cir. 2020). In June 2018, Morehead injured his left ankle while
playing basketball. At that time, he was examined by Dr. Adebola Ibirogba (not a
defendant), who prescribed pain medication, ice for two weeks, and a
controlled-ankle-motion boot for six weeks. Dr. Ibirogba also ordered an x-ray. After
the x-ray showed no signs of fracture or dislocation, registered nurse William Borgen
ordered Morehead to continue the prescribed treatment.
Morehead continued to experience immense pain, and so the next month
Dr. Ibirogba ordered an MRI. The test revealed a ruptured Achilles tendon, prompting
Dr. Ibirogba to refer Morehead to an external orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Eric Nelson.
Dr. Nelson soon examined Morehead and noted that his Achilles had begun the
natural healing process and that scar tissue had started to form. In Dr. Nelson’s view,
once significant scar tissue begins to form, there is no benefit to repairing the injury
surgically. Dr. Nelson also noted that, in his experience, prisoners tend to have higher
rates of surgical-site infection after surgery than patients outside of prison, and so he
proposed a conservative treatment plan that consisted of a short-leg cast.
At a follow-up examination three weeks later, Dr. Nelson noted that Morehead’s
Achilles was healing as expected. Based on the examination, Dr. Nelson removed
Morehead’s cast and recommended physical therapy. Throughout therapy, Morehead
repeatedly complained about pain in his left ankle as well as increased pain while
standing and walking. Physical therapist Robert Rhodes, who noted Morehead’s
continued progress, explained to Morehead that he should expect some discomfort
during his exercises.
Dr. Nelson examined Morehead again one month later, and observed that
Morehead had mostly recovered full range of motion in the ankle, and that the foot had
regained full strength. Dr. Nelson recommended that Morehead continue physical
therapy.
Over the next five months, however, Morehead experienced pain, and he filed
multiple health service requests. He was seen by nurses who encouraged him to
continue with the conservative plan of care, including physical therapy.

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 23-1907 Page 3
In response to Morehead’s continued complaints of pain, Advanced Nurse
Practitioner Christine Burnett ordered an MRI on his left ankle. Dr. Nelson reviewed the
MRI and concluded that Morehead’s Achilles was healing properly. But noting an
“obvious” difference in the size of Morehead’s calf muscles, Dr. Nelson recommended
continued conservative treatment and physical therapy.
In the meantime, Morehead had sent a letter to the prison’s health-services
manager Angela Thompson, requesting surgery to repair his Achilles. (It is unclear
from the record whether Thompson denied Morehead’s request, but in her role as
health-services manager, she was not authorized to override the treatment decisions of
Morehead’s physicians.)
Morehead’s continued complaints of pain in his ankle led to a telemedicine
appointment with Dr. Nelson in October 2020. Dr. Nelson concluded that Morehead’s
ongoing complaints of pain related to incomplete functional recovery and incomplete
rehabilitation.
In late 2021, Morehead underwent a third MRI on his ankle, which showed
“remote extensive tearing of the Achilles tendon.” Although the reviewing doctor (an
orthopedic surgery resident, not Dr. Nelson) agreed to place a request for surgery, he
warned Morehead that the risk of wound infection would be high, and that surgery
would do little to resolve his pain. No operation, however, ever took place.
Dissatisfied with the results of conservative treatment despite his continued
complaints of pain, Morehead sued Dr. Nelson and prison medical staff for deliberate
indifference, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violation of Wisconsin negligence law. Because of
the conservative treatment, Morehead states, he now has a permanent disfigurement
that requires him to use crutches and a medical boot to perform daily activities. In
Morehead’s view, if a third MRI had been ordered sooner, it would have shown that his
Achilles did not heal properly.
The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants, stating that no
reasonable jury could conclude that they were deliberately indifferent toward
Morehead’s Achilles injury. With regard to Dr. Nelson, the court explained that
Morehead did not produce evidence that the doctor used anything but accepted
professional judgment when recommending nonsurgical treatment. As for the other
medical staff members, the court found no dispute that they implemented Dr. Nelson’s

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 23-1907 Page 4
treatment plan and lacked the authority to override a doctor’s medical decision by
ordering surgery themselves. The court relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over the
state-law claim.
On appeal, Morehead primarily maintains that Dr. Nelson acted with deliberate
indifference toward his Achilles injury by recommending conservative, nonsurgical
treatment despite his repeated and persistent complaints of pain. But as the district
court correctly explained, no reasonable jury could conclude on this record that
Dr. Nelson’s treatment was deliberately indifferent. Dr. Nelson’s medical judgment is
entitled to deference unless “no minimally competent professional would have
responded similarly under those circumstances,” such that the treatment he
recommended was “blatantly inappropriate.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409 (7th Cir.
2014). Morehead points to no evidence that calls into question Dr. Nelson’s
recommendation to pursue nonsurgical treatment based on his opinion that the benefits
of surgery on an Achilles that had started to heal were outweighed by the serious risk of
infection. And even though the surgical resident later placed a request for surgery, he
cautioned Morehead of the risk of wound infection and the likelihood that his pain
would not be resolved.
Morehead maintains, similarly, that his treating nurses, physical therapist, and
the health-services manager acted with deliberate indifference by continuing
conservative treatment despite his complaints of pain. But here, too, no reasonable jury
could find that the medical staff were deliberately indifferent to Morehead’s medical
needs. They responded to Morehead’s complaints of pain by ordering MRIs (three
total), prescribing pain medication as needed, and arranging for him to receive
orthopedic shoes. And they appropriately deferred to Dr. Nelson’s recommendation to
continue conservative treatment because Morehead’s Achilles was healing and
regaining strength through physical therapy. Aside from Morehead’s desire for surgery,
nothing in the record suggests that Morehead’s course of treatment was so woefully
inadequate to suggest a reckless disregard for his medical needs. See Eagan v. Dempsey,
987 F.3d 667, 695 (7th Cir. 2021).
Next, Morehead argues that the district court abused its discretion by
relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim. But when no federal
claims remain in advance of trial, we presume that the district court will relinquish
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. RWJ Mgmt. Co. v. BP Prods. N. Am.,
Inc., 672 F.3d 476, 479 (7th Cir. 2012). Indeed, we reverse such a decision “only in

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 23-1907 Page 5
extraordinary circumstances.” Id. at 480. Here, Morehead does not point to any
extraordinary circumstances to undermine the district court’s conclusion.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --