Vernell Freeman, an Indiana prisoner, alleged that Nurse Kimberly Myers and Dr. Noe Marandet, medical providers at Miami Correctional Facility, violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied Freeman’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ motion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in its January 7, 2026 Order: “But a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Myers was deliberately indifferent to Freeman’s medical needs when she advised Freeman to take a medication containing a blood thinner after he was diagnosed with a subdural hematoma.”
Background Facts
On April 30, 2018, Freeman fell from a top bunk and hit his head on a desk in his cell. His cellmate alerted correctional staff, who discussed the fall with Freeman and told him to fill out a Health Care Request form. Three days later, Freeman told a triage nurse that he was nauseous, dizzy, and in pain. He said that clumps of blood came out of his nose, mouth, and eye when he blew his nose, and the nurse noted that he had a broken blood vessel in his eye.
Freeman requested to see another nurse two weeks later, on May 17, reporting that he felt “intense pressure” and “like liquid” was in his head. Myers examined Freeman and diagnosed him with a head contusion on May 18. Myers reviewed Freeman’s records, examined his x-rays, conducted a neurological test, and discussed Freeman’s history of migraines. At Freeman’s request, she renewed his six-month prescription for Excedrin, a pain-relief medication that contains aspirin, which is a blood thinner. Freeman and Myers dispute whether she specifically advised him to take Excedrin for his headaches at this visit, though Myers acknowledges that she renewed the prescription because “it was a routine medication for him,” “there were no signs nor symptoms of any neurological damages nor intracranial bleeding present,” and she believed his symptoms were consistent with his history of migraines.
Out of caution, Myers referred Freeman for a CT scan to rule out any underlying issues. The scan on June 8 revealed that Freeman had a small, chronic subdural hematoma—bleeding under the outer layer of the brain that may occur after a head injury. Myers and Marandet, a doctor at the prison, discussed the results and determined that no treatment was needed at that time.
When Freeman next saw Myers on June 26, she informed him of the results of the CT scan. Freeman attested that Myers told him to keep taking Excedrin, while Myers contended that she told him to take only Tylenol, which is not a blood thinner. The medical record from that day is silent as to which medication Myers verbally advised Freeman to take, but that record and subsequent medical records show that Freeman continued to have a prescription for Excedrin.
The parties also disputed which medications Freeman took after this visit. Nursing staff provided Freeman with Excedrin up to three times a week. But Freeman denied taking ibuprofen, an NSAID pain reliever that also functions as a blood thinner.
On July 4, a dentist prescribed him a five-day course of naproxen, another NSAID, after he reported “tremendous pain” in his jaw. Myers did not know about the naproxen prescription until after Freeman finished taking it, and Freeman attested that he did not remember whether he had taken the naproxen.
Freeman’s headaches grew worse. On July 15, he reported that he had suffered from a headache with “9 out of 10” pain and was admitted to the infirmary. Early the next morning, he pressed the emergency call button, reporting that he had passed out. The parties disputed whether he also hit his head.
On July 17, Myers prescribed several new medications to Freeman “to get him to stop the NSAIDs and the Excedrin.” By July 18, Freeman’s headaches had intensified, so Myers referred him for another CT scan at a local hospital. That scan revealed that the hematoma had grown significantly, so surgeons performed an emergency craniotomy. Freeman remained in the hospital for four days. While he was hospitalized, doctors terminated the Excedrin prescription and prescribed new medications. Freeman reported that he suffers side effects from the procedure, including seizures, headaches, and personality changes.
Freeman filed suit, alleging that Myers was deliberately indifferent to the risks of prescribing and recommending Excedrin to him after he fell and hit his head. He also asserted that Myers and Marandet were deliberately indifferent by pursuing no treatment following the initial discovery of his hematoma and argued on appeal that the court improperly credited Myers’s account that she advised Freeman to take only Tylenol on June 26.
The federal appellate court stated in its Order: “there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Myers was deliberately indifferent after she learned of the results of Freeman’s CT scan. Specifically, Myers admitted in her declaration that she knew that Excedrin would be contraindicated for a patient with a subdural hematoma because blood-thinning medication could cause the hematoma to herniate. But Freeman attested that Myers advised him to continue taking Excedrin during the June 26 visit to review the CT scan results, and undisputed evidence shows that he continued to have a prescription for Excedrin after this visit. In other words, Freeman has provided some evidence from which a jury could infer that Myers knew of but disregarded a substantial risk of harm … Myers’s sworn statements that Excedrin is contraindicated for a patient with a subdural hematoma and that Freeman should not have been taking it reveals that her advice to Freeman to continue taking Excedrin was unequivocally inappropriate … Moreover, Myers’s failure to terminate the Excedrin prescription after the discovery of Freeman’s hematoma is additional evidence the jury may consider in determining whether she failed to exercise medical judgment. In the context of a provider’s persistence in a course of treatment known to be ineffective, we have noted that “when a doctor is aware of the need to undertake a specific task and fails to do so, the case for deliberate indifference is particularly strong” … Here, Myers knew that Freeman needed to stop taking Excedrin after he was diagnosed with a subdural hematoma, but she did not prescribe an available, safer alternative until July 17, after Freeman was admitted to the prison infirmary and the day before his emergency craniotomy. Freeman has presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that that Myers “knew better than to make the medical decisions that [she] did.””
The federal appellate court concluded: “Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment with respect to Freeman’s claim against Myers that she acted with deliberate indifference on or after June 26, 2018, when she advised Freeman to keep taking Excedrin after he was diagnosed with a subdural hematoma, and we REMAND for further proceedings. The balance of the judgment is AFFIRMED.”
Source Freeman v. Myers, No. 24-3098.
If you or a loved one were injured due to deliberate indifference regarding medical care in prison in the United States, you should promptly seek the legal advice of a prison medical malpractice lawyer in your state who may investigate your deliberate indifference claim for you and represent you or your loved one, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to be connected with prison medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
