Anderson v. S. Health Partners, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:20-cv-00095-M |
| Parties | EDWARD LEE ANDERSON, as Administrator of the Estate of CORY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.; COUNTY OF BEAUFORT, NORTH CAROLINA; ERNIE COLEMAN, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Beaufort County, N.C. ; and THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
EDWARD LEE ANDERSON, as Administrator of the Estate of CORY ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.; COUNTY OF BEAUFORT, NORTH CAROLINA; ERNIE COLEMAN, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Beaufort County, N.C. ; and THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
No. 4:20-cv-00095-M
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division
January 31, 2022
ORDER
RICHARD E. MYERS II, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
These matters come before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Beaufort County, Sheriff Ernie Coleman ("Coleman"), and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company ("Ohio Casualty") (collectively, "Beaufort Defendants") [DE 38] and the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Southern Health Partners, Inc. ("SHP") [DE 42]. Although provided the opportunity to do so, Plaintiff did not file responses to these motions within the time required by local rule and, at status conference before this court, Plaintiffs counsel confirmed that he did not intend to do so. For the reasons that follow, the motions are granted.
I. Background
A. Procedural Background
On May 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint in Beaufort County Superior Court alleging several claims in connection with the death of Cory Edward Anderson ("Anderson") on
May 8, 2017. The action was removed to this court on June 3, 2020, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 governing federal question jurisdiction. See Notice, DE-1. SHP responded by filing an Answer, then filed a motion for partial dismissal of Plaintiff s claims. DE 10, 27. Likewise, the Beaufort Defendants responded to the Complaint by filing an Answer and an Amended Answer, then they also filed a motion for partial dismissal of the Complaint. DE 6, 31, 35. The court granted SHP's motion and granted in part the Beaufort Defendants' motion (DE 33, 37); thus, the claims remaining in this case are: Plaintiffs third cause of action for violation of § 162-55 of the North Carolina General Statutes against Defendants Coleman and Ohio Casualty; fifth cause of action for deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs safety by policy, practice, or custom in violation of the Eighth Amendment[1] against the Beaufort Defendants; sixth cause of action for deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs health by policy, practice, or custom in violation of the Eighth Amendment against all Defendants; and seventh cause of action for deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs health by the conduct of prison and healthcare officials in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Coleman and Ohio Casualty.
Defendants filed the present motions, contending that no genuine issues of material fact exist demonstrating they violated the Anderson's constitutional or statutory rights. Plaintiff filed no response(s) to the present motions before the deadline set forth in Local Civil Rule 7.1(f); accordingly, on January 10, 2022, the court held a status conference at which Plaintiffs counsel confirmed that he filed no responses to the Defendants' motions and did not intend to do so.
B. Findings of Fact
Unless they cite to the record, the following findings of relevant facts are undisputed for purposes of the present motion. The court will not consider proffered "facts" supported solely by the operative pleading in this case. See Atkins v. Glaser T, 823 Fed.Appx. 218, 219 (4th Cir. 2020) ("... 'the nonmoving party [must] go beyond the pleadings' and rely on 'affidavits, ... depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file' to prove that a genuine issue of material fact exists.") (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986)); Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404, 408 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ("To overcome a motion for summary judgment, however, the nonmoving party may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading but must set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.").
1. Cory Anderson, the decedent, was an inmate at the Beaufort County Detention Center from April 28, 2017 to May 7, 2017, during which time he was serving a thirty-day sentence on a conviction of driving while impaired.
2. SHP is a private, corporate provider of health care services that mainly contracts with local city or county jails to provide general health care services at those jails. SHP employs and places a permanent medical staff of registered nurses and licensed practical nurses at each jail, and contracts with local physicians and/or physician extenders, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants, to serve as medical directors and to provide health care services at each jail. The health care services provided at each jail in North Carolina are rendered under the supervision and direction of physicians and/or physician extenders licensed under Chapter 90, Article 1 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
3. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this lawsuit, SHP was contracted to provide health care services to inmates incarcerated at the Beaufort County Detention Center ("Detention Center" or "Jail"). During the relevant period, SHP employed a registered nurse, who held the role of the Medical Team Administrator ("MTA"), and several licensed practical nurses to provide on-site medical services to inmates twelve hours per day, seven days per week. The MTA was on-call twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.
4. In addition, a physician assistant was independently contracted by SHP to serve as the Medical Director for the Jail. The physician assistant was not on site every day but was available to the nursing staff by telephone for any questions regarding treatment of inmates. Further, a regional representative for SHP located in North Carolina, who would have been a licensed registered nurse, was also available to nursing staff at the Jail. The regional representative would not have been present every day but was available to the nursing staff by telephone for any questions, concerns, or updates regarding inmates.
5. SHP has developed policies, procedures, and treatment protocols for its employees and agents to consult in carrying out their duties in detention center medical departments. SHP regularly revises and updates these policies, procedures, and treatment protocols, in an effort to provide consistent, efficient, and thorough healthcare services.
6. At all relevant times, SHP maintained standard policies, procedures, and treatment protocols for all of its medical providers, including for the medical providers at the Jail.
a. It was standard policy at the Jail for a newly booked inmate to have a medical history and physical exam performed by medical staff within fourteen days of booking
b. It was standard policy at the Jail for newly booked inmates with reported known chronic or serious medical conditions, such as high blood pressure, to have a medical history and physical exam performed by medical staff within twenty-four hours of booking.
c. It was standard policy at the Jail for any inmate placed on a drug or alcohol withdrawal treatment plan to be seen and have his vitals checked by medical staff at least once per day.
d. Newly hired nursing staff for the Jail would be given on-site training during their first few weeks at the Jail. This initial training was administered and overseen by the MTA at the Jail.
e. The nursing staff at the Jail were assigned online training courses by SHP. Such online training courses were assigned and/or completed continuously throughout the year and were completed by nursing staff on their own time.
f Routine quality improvement reviews were conducted at the Jail by either the MTA or by a North Carolina regional representative of SHP, to ensure that the care and treatment of inmates complied with the policies set forth by SHP. Each of these reviews focused on a different type of care or treatment, as well as the implementation of the policies related to the respective type of care or treatment. These reviews were routine reviews.
7. At all relevant times, Joy Cherry-Pike, RN, was the MTA at the Jail. She became permanently licensed as a registered nurse in 1993 and has maintained an active license as a registered nurse since that time.
8. As the MTA, Cherry-Pike received specific initial training regarding her role, specifically with regard to coordinating the medical personnel at the Jail and the treatment of inmates.
9. The medical director for the Jail was Physician Assistant Jerry Leggett, who was available for consultation by telephone at any time, and who came to the Jail to review patient charts and to evaluate patients approximately one day a week.
10. Nurses at the Jail were provided various types of training by SHP and its representatives and employees. Newly hired nurses completed orientation training, administered by the MTA, during the first few weeks after they began working at the Jail. In addition, all nurses at the Jail were assigned continuous, treatment-specific online training programs by SHP.
11. Inmates at the Detention Center were able to request medical care or ask to be seen by medical staff by submitting a Sick Call slip. If an inmate did not submit a Sick Call slip, then there was no guarantee that medical personnel would know to see that inmate for treatment.
12. Inmates at the Detention Center were brought to the medical station to receive treatment by the nursing staff. Except for emergency situations or distribution of medications, nurses generally would not see inmates for treatment outside of the medical station.
13. If an inmate was placed on a treatment regimen that required daily checks, such as a blood pressure check program or a withdrawal treatment plan, then that inmate would generally be brought to the medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial