Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hurston v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

December 31, 2019

ANDRE HURSTON, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          MARK T. PITTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Defendant United States of America's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18). Having considered the motion, briefing, and applicable law, the Court finds that the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment should be and is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff Andre Hurston's claims against the United States are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

         BACKGROUND

         Hurston is a federal inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Pl.'s Complaint, ECF No. 1 at ¶ 4. Hurston alleges that in June 2018, while he was in federal custody at Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth (“FMC Fort Worth”), he noticed a small hole in his leg. Id. at ¶ 9. He applied Neosporin and the wound scabbed over, but a week later when the scab fell off, there was a hole in Hurston's leg. Id. Hurston asserts that he was told by staff that he could receive wound-care treatment. Id. Hurston's medical records indicate that on June 16, 2018, he was evaluated by the FMC Fort Worth medical staff, who cleaned his wound and applied a bandage. Def.'s MSJ App'x at 3.

         On June 17, 2018, the nurse providing Hurston's wound care dressed the wound and told Hurston to go to sick call the next day. Pl.'s Complaint at ¶ 10. The next day, Hurston attended sick call and described the wound to the evaluating nurse. Id. at ¶ 11. Hurston alleges that when he attempted to remove his dressing, the nurse stopped him because the nurse said the dressing material was too expensive. Id. The nurse then allegedly told Hurston that he would put Hurston on wound care clinic, but Hurston alleges that he never did. Id.

         On June 22, 2018, Hurston went to sick call again and filled out the same form before he was seen by the same evaluating nurse. Id. at ¶ 12. Hurston alleges that the evaluating nurse said he had forgot to put Hurston on the wound care clinic, but that Hurston would be on the call out for wound care clinic the next day. Id. But Hurston was again not placed on the call out. Id. This time, however, Hurston's dressing was changed. Id.

         On June 25, 2018, Hurston went to sick call again, filled out the same form, and was seen by the same evaluating nurse. Id. at ¶ 13. This time, Hurston waited until the nurse placed Hurston on wound care call out. Id. The nurse took a culture of the drainage from the wound and prescribed Sulfamethoxazole / Trimeth for ten days. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the hole in his leg grew from the size of a pencil eraser to the size of a half dollar. Id. at ¶ 14.

         Hurston's medical records indicate that on June 27, 2018, a nurse practitioner evaluated him for the wound (as well as a swollen thumb) and provided Hurston with education so that he could take care of his ankle wound. Def.'s MSJ App'x at 5-6. The next day, Hurston was evaluated by the same nurse practitioner. Id. at 7-9. Hurston reported that the wound had become more irritated, so he was prescribed antibiotics and wound care clinic for seven days. Id. Hurston's medical records indicate that on June 30, 2018, he failed to show up to this scheduled wound care appointment. Id. at 13.

         From July 1, 2018, through July 11, 2018, Hurston was seen every day by a nurse for wound care. Id. at 12-13. On July 5, 2018, the medical records note that Hurston's wound was cleaned and FMC Fort Worth staff applied “medihoney and maxorb Ag” and covered the wound with dressing. Id. at 14. Hurston's medical records show that on July 8, 2018, he was evaluated by a nurse for wound care and that his wound was cleansed with “CarraKlenz.” Id. at 17.

         When Hurston was examined by a doctor on July 9, 2018, the doctor told Hurston that the wound looked like a stasis ulcer. Pl.'s Complaint at ¶ 15. When Hurston asked the doctor the results of the culture, Hurston claims that the doctor told him the culture was discarded because it had been turned in too late. Id. On July 11, 2018, Hurston was seen by a wound-care specialist and his wound was cultured. Def.'s MSJ App'x at 22-23. The wound was cleaned and wrapped and Hurston was educated about pressure relief measures and wound debridement. Id. at 23. The wound-care specialist found that Hurston's symptoms were consistent with chronic venous insufficiency. Id. at 22. On July 13, 2018, Hurston was seen for wound care and the wound was cleaned and dressed. Id. at 12. On July 16, 2018, Hurston was seen for wound care, and he reported no complaints. Id. at 11.

         Hurston began seeing a physician, and the physician decided to take a culture, picture, and measurement of Hurston's wound. Pl.'s Complaint at ¶ 16. Hurston states that on July 19, 2018, the physician informed him that he had a staph infection. Id. On July 20, 2018, Hurston was evaluated by both the physical therapist and doctor, and he was prescribed Doxycycline. Id. at ¶ 17. Hurston's medical records reveal that from July 22, 2018, through July 27, 2018, Hurston was evaluated by FMC Fort Worth medical staff and that his wound was repeatedly cleaned and dressed. Def.'s MSJ App'x at 11, 25. And from July 28, 2018, through August 11, 2018, Hurston was seen every day by a wound-care nurse, and that as of August 11, 2018, there were no signs or symptoms of an infection. Id. at 10. When Hurston was evaluated for an unrelated medical issue on December 21, 2018, the physician noted that Hurston had an open wound growing Staphylococcus on his leg and that Hurston “had been adequately treated and the ulceration healed.” Id. at 31.

         After filing an administrative tort claim with the BOP (Def.'s MSJ App'x at 32-37), Hurston filed a complaint in this Court on February 1, 2019, asserting claims against the BOP under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for negligent medical care. See ECF No. 1. On October 25, 2019, the United States filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 18. On December 3, 2019, the Court issued an order, noting that Hurston's deadline to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment was November 14, 2019, but that the Court would extend Hurston's time to file a response to December 30, 2019. See ECF No. 23. The Court further stated that if Hurston failed to file a response by the newly extended deadline, the Court would accept the facts in the United States' motion as uncontroverted. See Id. As of the date of this order, Hurston has still not filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the motion is ripe for the Court's review, and the Court accepts the United States' statements of fact as uncontroverted.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence on file show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “[T]he substantive law will identify which facts are material.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. The movant makes a showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact by informing the court of the basis of its motion and by ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.