Andrew D. Coe v. Darrin Atkins, et al.

Chicago, Illinois, personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants on civil rights violation theories.



Andrew Coe sued four correctional officers and a doctor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his need for high-top shoes to manage his painful foot condition.



To walk, Coe uses a cane and wears leg braces. When Coe arrived at the Northern Reception and Classification Center in Joliet, Illinois, on September 26, 2014, he was wearing these leg braces and a pair of high-top sneakers. Because of his foot drop, the healthcare unit gave him a 30-day permit to keep his sneakers, instead of returning them to his family

and giving him the Center's standard shoes, which are low-top and have no laces.



On October 9, the Center's medical director submitted a referral to Dr. Stephen Ritz seeking well-cushioned and arched walking shoes for Coe. The director did not mention that Coe wore leg braces or needed specific shoes to stabilize the braces. Dr. Ritz denied the referral because the request did "not meet Wexford policy” and Coe had no "medical necessity for walking shoes.” Rather, Coe had "access to walking shoes in the commissary, as well as heel cups and shoe inserts.”



To prevail on these claims, Coe needed to show (1) that he had an objectively serious medical condition and (2) prison officials were "deliberately, that is subjectively, indifferent” to his condition. Johnson v. Dominguez, 5 F.4th 818, 824 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 839 F.3d 658, 662 (7th Cir. 2016)). The defendants do not contest that foot drop is a serious medical condition.



Prison officials are entitled to defer to the medical staff's judgment on whether an accommodation is medically necessary. See Giles v. Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1049–50 (7th Cir. 2019). Investigating a prisoner's medical care with the appropriate providers is precisely what officers are supposed to do in a situation like this, and they have no duty to act further absent knowledge that medical providers are mistreating the prisoner. See Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 527 (7th Cir.

2008). Coe provides no evidence that he was being mistreated, let alone that the officers knew of any mistreatment.

Motion for summary judgment granted.



Affirmed.