Brady v. Weeks Med. Ctr.
Decision Date | 22 July 2021 |
Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-655-SM |
Citation | 2021 DNH 114 |
Parties | Darren Brady, Plaintiff v. Weeks Medical Center and John Ford, M.D., Defendants |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
Pro se plaintiff, Darren Brady, brings this action seeking damages for alleged violations of state and federal law. Specifically, he claims that the defendants, Weeks Medical Center ("WMC") and Dr. John Ford, refused to provide him with required medical treatment when he presented to the WMC Emergency Department complaining of back pain. Moreover, says Brady, defendants' wrongful conduct was motivated by a racially discriminatory animus. He advances claims under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and New Hampshire's Law Against Discrimination. He also brings common law claims for medical malpractice.
Defendants move for summary judgment on all remaining claims in Brady's complaint, asserting that there are no genuinely disputed material facts and saying they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons discussed, that motion is granted.
When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court is "obliged to review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and to draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party's favor." Block Island Fishing, Inc. v. Rogers, 844 F.3d 358, 360 (1st Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals "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). In this context, a factual dispute "is 'genuine' if the evidence of record permits a rational factfinder to resolve it in favor of either party, and 'material' if its existence or nonexistence has the potential to change the outcome of the suit." Rando v. Leonard, 826 F.3d 553, 556 (1st Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
When objecting to a motion for summary judgment, "[a]s to issues on which the party opposing summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, that party may not simply rely onthe absence of evidence but, rather, must point to definite and competent evidence showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." Perez v. Lorraine Enters., 769 F.3d 23, 29-30 (1st Cir. 2014). In other words, "a laundry list of possibilities and hypotheticals" and "[s]peculation about mere possibilities, without more, is not enough to stave off summary judgment." Tobin v. Fed. Express Corp., 775 F.3d 448, 451-52 (1st Cir. 2014). See generally Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
On June 2, 2018, shortly after 8:00 p.m., Brady presented to the WMC Emergency Department, complaining of lower back pain. Based on prior experience with similar discomfort, he assumed it was a recurrence of sciatica. Other than pain radiating from his back and into his leg, Brady had no other complaints or medical issues.
After checking in at reception, Brady was taken to an examination room. There, a triage nurse took his medical history and vital signs, including blood pressure, pulse, temperature, and oxygen saturation rate. All were normal. At his deposition, Brady testified that he felt the nurse did herjob appropriately and he had no complaints with the manner or scope of her examination.
Once the triage nurse completed her initial interview and examination, she informed Dr. Ford that Brady was ready for him. Dr. Ford entered the examination room and Brady described the severity and location of his pain. Dr. Ford believed that the more Brady explained his situation, the more he began to contradict himself by giving varying descriptions of the location of his pain.
I remember entering the examination room after the triage nurse completed her assessment. Mr. Brady was unaccompanied, and I recall that he was lying on his stomach on the stretcher, which is unusual for someone with back pain. I began speaking with Mr. Brady about his back pain to understand the location and quality of the pain. Mr. Brady gave me varying descriptions. First, he described the back pain as radiating down to his knee, but then he said it was radiating into his groin. In a third version, Mr. Brady said that the pain radiated down to his foot. I recall asking Mr. Brady about these inconsistencies, and trying to do so nicely.
John E. Ford, M.D., Answers to Interrogatories (document no. 26-7) at 14.
As the interaction between the two men continued, Brady became increasingly animated, agitated, and loud. See, e.g., Deposition of Darren Brady (document no. 26-4) at 70 () ; id. at 72 ( ); see also John E. Ford, M.D., Answers to Interrogatories at 14 (). The parties disagree as to whether Dr. Ford simply refused to treat Brady, see Brady Deposition at 82 () , or whether Brady terminated his interaction with Dr. Ford, see, e.g., Weeks Medical Center ED Report (document no. 26-3) at 2 (); see also Ambulatory Assessment (document no. 26-3) at 6, 7, & 8 ( ).
All agree that Brady left the examination room and, as he was making his way back to the waiting area, he fell to the ground. One witness reported that Brady was "very loud and thrashing on the floor." Statement of Triage Nurse Rebecca Shanks (document no. 26-6) at 1. Nurse Shanks further recountedthat, Id. See also Statement of Security Officer Richard Gilson (document no. 26-6) at 2 () .
Eventually, an officer escorted Brady to the exit where he apparently fell to the ground again. See id. () . A family member recorded a portion of those events, which Brady published to the internet. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh0RDY_pS8s. That video shows Brady alternating between shouting obscenities at the officer and rolling around on the ground, moaning in apparent pain.Brady also appears to be directing the person producing the video to make certain that she captures particular aspects of the scene.
Brady testified that although he was in significant pain, he was never "in fear of [his] life," noting that "I've had this situation before in Littleton so I already know it's not life-or-death situation." Brady Deposition at 56. When asked what led him to conclude that racial animus affected the way defendants treated him, Brady testified that:
Brady Deposition at 78-80. Later in his deposition, Brady was again asked why he believed Dr. Ford's allegedly skeptical attitude toward him was motivated by racial animus.
I don't know. I don't know. Like again I said he could have wanted to go eat. He could have had a phone call. He could have had more patients that he felt needed his help more. I don't know per se if it was because my skin color, but what I do feel is me being black had something to do with it.
Id. at 133. When asked whether Dr. Ford used any derogatory language with him, Brady said, Id. at 81.1
There is no evidence that WMC or Dr. Ford failed to comply with any of the hospital's procedures in dealing with Brady, nor is there any evidence (other than Brady's testimony about his "beliefs") that he was treated differently than any other patient under similar (albeit fairly unusual) circumstances.
After Brady left WMC, his girlfriend drove him to another local hospital, where he was observed to be in "mild to moderate distress" with "some left lower sciatic and buttock tenderness." Littleton Regional Healthcare Emergency Department Report (document no. 26-5) at 2. Again, all his vital signs werenormal. He was given Toradol (a non-narcotic pain...
To continue reading
Request your trial