HILL v. BEDWELL (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Asher B. Hill appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sara Bedwell and Whitney Moore, DDS (collectively, the Defendants), on his claim that he was denied necessary dental care during his incarceration at an Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) facility. Hill argues that the designated evidence established that there are genuine issues of material facts as to whether the Defendants were “deliberately indifferent” in failing to provide him with emergency dental care, resulting in a “violation of his Eighth Amendment rights” under the United States Constitution. Appellant's Brief at 12.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On March 9, 2021, Dennis Meyer, DDS, removed one of Hill's infected teeth after obtaining his consent to do so. At the time, Hill was—and still is—incarcerated at the Wabash Correctional Facility (Wabash). Two days after the extraction, Hill submitted a Health Care Request Form (Request Form) for the removal of an alleged tooth fragment that remained embedded in his gum.

[4] On March 18, Dr. Meyer submitted a response, denying that there was any tooth structure remaining in the extraction site. Dr. Meyer believed that Hill was feeling the edge of the bony socket and that no further dental treatment was necessary.

[5] Hill made no further complaints about the extraction site until he submitted another Request Form on August 8, 2021. At that time, Hill complained of pain and swelling at the site and requested a dentist visit. Hill, however, refused to allow prison medical staff to assess him. Hill's Request Form was forwarded to Wabash's dental office, and an entry noting Hill's assessment refusal was added to his treatment notes under Dr. Meyer's name on August 17.

[6] Hill submitted another Request Form on December 30, 2021, once again complaining of pain and occasional bleeding at the extraction site. The dental department received that form on January 6, 2022. In response, a nurse at Wabash obtained an order from prison physician, Dr. Samuel Byrd, for ibuprofen and antibiotics to treat Hill's pain and swelling. Hill submitted another Request Form on January 9 and received a response two days later indicating that he would be scheduled with dental staff based on priority. The January 9 Request Form was also forwarded to Wabash's dental staff.

[7] Bedwell began serving as Wabash's Health Services Administrator (HSA) in early January 2022. She served in an administrative capacity and never personally provided clinical medical or dental services to DOC patients. The designated evidence also showed that Bedwell did not have authority to schedule or prioritize dental procedures or order treatment for patients.

[8] Bedwell first became familiar with Hill's case on January 25, 2022, when she responded to Hill's offender grievance that complained of delayed dental treatment. Bedwell confirmed that Hill was on the list of patients to be seen by a dentist, and she advised Hill to put in another Request Form if he continued to experience pain, swelling, or other symptoms at the extraction site.

[9] Hill received a follow-up medical exam from Dr. Byrd on January 31. During that visit, Dr. Byrd observed what he believed to be a “retained root tip of upper gum line.” Appellees’ Appendix Vol. 2 at 37-38. Dr. Byrd did not find any signs of infection, and he did not notice any gum swelling or redness. Dr. Byrd ordered acetaminophen for pain, and he noted that Hill was eligible to obtain additional pain medication from the prison commissary.

[10] Dr. Moore, a registered dentist licensed in the State of Indiana and services provider for the DOC, became involved in Hill's case in February 2022, when she traveled to Wabash and met with him at Bedwell's request. During that visit, Dr. Moore confirmed that Hill exhibited no gum swelling, redness, or other signs of infection and that he had received pain medication pursuant to Dr. Byrd's order. She also determined that Hill did not require expedited emergency dental care and reassured him that he was still on the list for a complete dental visit.

[11] On April 21, 2022, Monica Vance, DDS, examined Hill. Dr. Vance obtained a localized x-ray of the tooth extraction site that showed a tooth shard embedded in Hill's gum. Dr. Vance removed the shard without complication and prescribed an antibiotic for soft tissue infection.

[12] On January 25, 2024, Hill filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Defendants violated his “Eighth Amendment rights when they maliciously denied” his request for emergency dental care. Appellees’ Appendix Vol. 2 at 4. The Defendants denied the allegations and thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment on January 30, 2025. The Defendants claimed that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the designated evidence established that they were not deliberately indifferent to Hill's alleged “serious medical need.” Id. at 13.

[13] On March 7, 2025, Hill filed what the trial court referred to as an “Objection” to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment that consisted of only two pages with no designation of evidence, statement of facts in dispute, or argument. Id. at 94-95. Hill subsequently presented a memorandum in opposition to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, an affidavit that he executed, and another affidavit executed by his nephew to the trial court. More specifically, the affidavits averred that Bedwell told Hill and his nephew that the “the piece of tooth” was not going to be removed because Hill “had [previously] thrown feces on [one of the nurses].” Id. at 102, 105.

[14] On April 3, 2025, the trial court entered summary judgment for the Defendants, noting that Hill's affidavits ¹ “contain numerous hearsay statements which [the] court cannot independently verify.” Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 7. The trial court further observed that “nothing within [the] affidavits disputes the facts as stated by Defendants in their motion.” Id.

[15] Hill now appeals. Additional facts will be added as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

[16] Hill claims that the grant of summary judgment for the Defendants was error because a “reasonable jury could find that [the Defendants were] deliberately indifferent to his severe dental pain.” Appellant's Brief at 11. Hill contends that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether he required emergency dental treatment and whether the Defendants’ delay in removing the tooth shard amounted to “an act of retribution” in light of the comment that Bedwell made to him and his nephew. Id. at 14.

I. Standard of Review

[17] We review summary judgment decisions de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court. Isgrig v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 256 N.E.3d 1238, 1244 (Ind. 2025). In accordance with Indiana Trial Rule 56(C), the initial burden is on the moving party to make a “prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. If the moving party carries its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to come forward with evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. Pursuant to T.R. 56(C), “[a] party opposing the [summary judgment] motion shall [ ] designate to the court each material issue of fact which that party asserts precludes entry of summary judgment and the evidence relevant thereto.”

[18] Our review is limited to the materials designated at the trial level. Gunderson v. State, Ind. Dep't of Nat. Res., 90 N.E.3d 1171, 1175 (Ind. 2018). We construe any doubts as to any facts or reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and while the trial court's findings and conclusions aid our review, they do not bind us. In re Supervised Estate of Kent, 99 N.E.3d 634, 637 (Ind. 2018).

[19] The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment imposes a duty on the states, through the Fourteenth Amendment, “to provide adequate medical care to incarcerated individuals.” Boyce v. Moore, 314 F.3d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 2002). Prison officials can be liable for violating the Eighth Amendment when they display deliberate indifference towards an objectively serious medical need. Thomas v. Blackard, 2 F.4th 716, 721-22 (7th Cir. 2021). To prevail on a deliberate indifference claim, a plaintiff must show (1) an objectively serious medical condition to which (2) a state official was deliberately, that is subjectively, indifferent. Johnson v. Dominguez, 5 F.4th 818, 824 (7th Cir. 2021).

II. Hill's Claims Against Bedwell

[20] For Hill to succeed on his deliberate indifference claim against Bedwell, he must establish Bedwell's personal responsibility for the alleged deprivation of his constitutional right. Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 1993). The responsibility requirement is satisfied “if the official acts or fails to act with a deliberate or reckless disregard of plaintiff's constitutional rights, or if the conduct causing the constitutional deprivation occurs at her direction or with her knowledge and consent.” Crowder v. Lash, 687 F.2d 996,1005 (7th Cir.1982).

[21] Here, the designated evidence established that Bedwell was not authorized to schedule dental procedures or order dental treatment. Moreover, Bedwell did not become the HSA at Wabash until January 2022. Hill acknowledged that Bedwell responded to his January 2022 complaint regarding his dental care, noting that Bedwell told him that he was “on the list to be seen by dental” and that he should “put in a Request Form ․ if he was having pain, swelling, redness, etc.” Appellees’ Appendix Vol. 2 at 6. As a result of Bedwell's representations, Hill promptly received pain medication and antibiotics from Wabash's primary care physician.

[22] Bedwell also ensured that Hill received a cell visit from Dr. Moore when she was at Wabash on February 8, 2022. Dr. Moore—accompanied by Bedwell—met with Hill, confirmed the treatment plan, and reassured him that he remained on the list for a complete dental visit. Id.

[23] The designated evidence established that Bedwell served solely in an administrative role, did not provide clinical or dental services to DOC patients, and she had no authority to schedule dental procedures or order treatment for patients. Thus, Bedwell did all that she could by providing Hill with accurate updates regarding his scheduled treatment, advising him to seek treatment from medical staff for symptoms as they arose, and involving Dr. Moore in February 2022.

[24] The only evidence that Hill designated in response to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was his self-serving affidavit and an affidavit of his nephew regarding an alleged conversation with Bedwell. Those affidavits claimed that Bedwell informed Hill and his nephew that the dentist “refus[ed]” to remove the remaining tooth fragment because Hill “had thrown feces [on one of the nurses].” Appellees’ Appendix Vol. 2 at 102.

[25] Even assuming for the sake of argument that Bedwell made such a statement, unprofessional conduct by prison staff does not violate the Constitution. Patton v. Przybylski, 822 F.2d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 1987). Moreover, Hill failed to designate any evidence demonstrating that Bedwell maintained personal responsibility for prioritizing, scheduling, or providing his dental care or to support his claim that she acted with deliberate indifference in her limited, non-clinical role. Moreover, the designated evidence demonstrated that Bedwell properly advised Hill to submit Request Forms if he experienced pain, redness, or swelling. Hill's compliance with Bedwell's advice resulted in the prompt, appropriate, and successful treatment of such symptoms through nurse visits and Dr. Byrd's orders for pain medication and antibiotics. Finally, Bedwell confirmed with Dr. Moore that Hill's condition did not require emergency dental treatment. For these reasons, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for Bedwell regarding Hill's claim against her for deliberate indifference.

III. Hill's Claims Against Dr. Moore

[26] To avoid summary judgment on a deliberate indifference claim where the movant has designated uncontradicted expert evidence indicating that a course of treatment was medically acceptable, a plaintiff must offer expert testimony or other comparable evidence on that contention. See White v. Woods, 48 F.4th 853, 862 (7th Cir. 2022). Most deliberate indifference claims require us to look at the physician's judgment to ensure that she was “actually exercising medical judgment and was not otherwise deliberately indifferent.” Id. at 863 n.4.

[27] First, we note that Dr. Moore, a licensed and experienced dentist and Statewide Dental Director, provided sworn opinion testimony that “Hill did not require expedited emergency dental treatment, and his case was appropriately prioritized.” Appellees’ Appendix Vol. 2 at 61. Dr. Moore supported her opinion with reference to the American Dental Association's (ADA) COVID-19 emergency dental guidance policy (the Policy) that “recommended [closing dental practices] to all but emergency dental care.” Id. at 59, 63. The Policy defined “emergencies” as “potentially life-threatening conditions [that] require immediate treatment to stop ongoing tissue bleeding, alleviate severe pain or infection, and included uncontrolled bleeding, cellulitis or a diffuse soft tissue bacterial infection ․ that potentially compromises the patient's airway, or trauma involving facial bones, potentially compromising the patient's airway.” Id. at 63.

[28] The Defendants’ designated evidence shows that Hill's condition objectively did not qualify as an emergency under the guidelines. Moreover, Hill failed to designate any expert testimony or other comparable evidence to contradict Dr. Moore's expert medical opinion regarding dental emergencies or deliberate indifference. Rather, Hill offered his own inadmissible medical opinion that his condition qualified as a dental emergency. According to Hill, his complaints of severe pain and receipt of ibuprofen and antibiotics from a physician in early January 2022 demonstrate that his “dental issues in regards to his extraction site ․ were dental emergencies as defined by the ADA.” Id. at 13-14. Hill's opinion, is both inadmissible and incorrect. To be sure, there is no evidence showing that Hill ever presented with uncontrolled bleeding, swelling that risked compromising his airway, or trauma that involved facial bones, as contemplated by the ADA definition of a dental emergency. And Dr. Byrd found no sign of infection and noted no gum swelling or redness during his examination of Hill on January 31, 2022, thus confirming that Hill did not require expedited emergency dental care. Hill's incorrect and inadmissible medical opinion challenging Dr. Moore's expert opinion that his condition was not a dental emergency failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding that issue.

[29] As for Hill's deliberate indifference contention against Dr. Moore, such a claim requires more than negligence “and approaches intentional wrongdoing.” Goodloe v. Sood, 947 F.3d 1026, 1030 (7th Cir. 2020). The evidence must show that the prison official knew or was aware of—but then disregarded—a substantial risk of harm to a prisoner's health. Id. Deliberate indifference occupies a space slightly below intent and poses a “high hurdle and an exacting standard requiring something approaching a total unconcern for the prisoner's welfare in the face of serious risks.” Donald v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 982 F.3d 451, 458 (7th Cir. 2020). A treatment decision that is based on professional judgment “cannot evince deliberate indifference because professional judgment implies a choice of what the defendant believed to be the best course of treatment.” Zaya v. Sood, 836 F.3d 800, 805–06 (7th Cir. 2016).

[30] As noted above, Dr. Moore was not involved in Hill's case until February 8, 2022. Hill had already been placed on Wabash's list for a dental visit, and he previously received pain medication and antibiotics from Dr. Byrd. Hill's follow-up examination revealed no signs or symptoms of infection and no gum swelling, redness, or other concerns. After Dr. Moore familiarized herself with Hill's case history, reviewed his ongoing medical treatment, and personally examined Hill on February 8, 2022, she exercised her professional judgment and determined that Hill's condition was “well-controlled without a need for highest level prioritization.” Appellees’ Appendix Vol. 2 at 61-62. The designated evidence established that Dr. Moore's review of Hill's dental and medical records, personal assessment of Hill's condition, and her reliance on prevailing ADA guidelines, supported that conclusion.

[31] In sum, Hill offered no evidence to suggest that Dr. Moore acted with deliberate indifference, let alone that she did so as retaliation for an incident that allegedly involved Hill and a facility nurse. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly entered summary judgment for Dr. Moore regarding Hill's claims against her.

[32] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although Hill's affidavits and memorandum of law were not file marked until April 10, 2025, it is apparent that the trial court received and considered them prior to ruling on the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Pyle, J. and DeBoer, J., concur.