Britt v. Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth.
| Decision Date | 27 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 06–CV–057S.,06–CV–057S. |
| Citation | 827 F.Supp.2d 198 |
| Parties | Carmen BRITT and Carmen Britt, as Executor of the Estate of Lula Baity, Plaintiff, v. BUFFALO MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Elaine Garbe, Jeri Giwa, Grace Manor Health Care Facility, Inc., David J. Gentner, Mary Stephan, Kathy Randall, Tiffany Matthews, Nelda Lawler, M.D., Teresa Chau, M.D., the County of Erie, Erie County Medical Center, Jesus A Ligott, M.D., Phillip J. Rados, M.D., Jessica W. Blume, M.D., Defendants.1 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles Patrick Ewing, State University of New York, Louis Rosado, Buffalo, NY, Ronald Paul Hart, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
John J. Marchese, Colucci & Gallaher, P.C., Adam C. Ferrandino, Feldman Kieffer, LLP, Paulette E. Ross, Sally J. Broad, Gibson, McAskill & Crosby, LLP, Anthony Girolamo Marecki, Kevin D. McCarthy, Joseph V. McCarthy, Roach, Brown, McCarthy & Gruber, P.C., Buffalo, NY, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Carmen Britt brings this action in her individual capacity and on behalf of the estate of her aunt, Lula Baity. Britt brings her claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that several defendants violated Baity's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights when, allegedly against her will, Baity was removed from her home and admitted to Erie County Medical Center (“ECMC”) and later referred and admitted to Grace Manor Health Care Facility, Inc. (“Grace Manor”). Britt also alleges that Grace Manor retaliated against her in violation of her constitutional rights. Finally, Britt brings an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim on behalf of herself and her aunt.
Presently before this Court are summary judgment motions filed by each party, including: (1) Dr. Phillip Rados (Docket No. 301); (2) Grace Manor, David Gentner, Tiffany Matthews, Kathy Randall, and Mary Stephan (Docket No. 304); (3) Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority (“Housing Authority”) and Elaine Garbe (Docket No. 305); (4) Dr. Teresa Chau and Nelda Lawler (Docket No. 306); (5) ECMC, Erie County, Dr. Jessica Blume, and Dr. Jesus Ligott (Docket No. 307); (6) Carmen Britt (Docket No. 308.) For the following reasons, each Defendants' motion is granted and Britt's motion is denied.
On September 30, 2003, Jeri Giwa, a Housing Authority employee who is now deceased, visited Baity's residence at the Housing Authority's Commodore–Perry Apartments.2 (Plaintiff's Statement of Facts (“Pl.'s Statement”), ¶ 5; Docket No. 308; Defendants' Joint Statement of Facts (“Defs' Statement”), p. 2; Docket No. 301–3.) 3 Once inside Baity's apartment, Giwa apparently became concerned with what she observed. Giwa described the apartment as “cluttered” and thought Baity was confused, suffering from delusions about her deceased husband, and generally unable to care for herself. (Defs.' Statement, p. 2.) Subsequently, Giwa, representing that she was Baity's social worker (she was not), called the Crisis Services of Erie County Outreach Team, to report a problem with Baity.4 (Pl.'s Statement, ¶ 5.) The next day, Jill Stadelmeyer, a Crisis Services employee and non-party to this action, arrived at Baity's home and determined that Baity should be taken to ECMC pursuant to New York Mental Hygiene Law (“NYMHL”) § 9.45, which allows for such an action under certain circumstances. ( Id., ¶ 2(III)-(IV).)
Rural Metro ambulance personnel eventually arrived at Baity's residence, escorted her to the ambulance, and transported her to ECMC. ( Id., ¶ 8.) In the course of these events, Britt claims that Giwa “physically seized Ms. Baity's person by grabbing hold of her arm in an effort to force her from the apartment.” ( Id.)
Upon admission to ECMC, Baity underwent a physical examination where the admitting personnel determined that she was anemic, dehydrated, hypertensive, and suffering from an irregular heartbeat. (Defs.' Statement, p. 4.) The emergency room attending physician, a non-party to this action, prescribed blood pressure medication and recommended inpatient admission to the “Medicine C Service” floor, a medical wing at ECMC. ( Id.) Two different physicians, also non-parties, saw her later that night and prescribed aspirin and a diuretic. When Defendant Dr. Rados first evaluated her the next day, he continued those medications and ordered tests, including a CT scan and a neuropsychiatric evaluation.5 ( Id., p. 5.) She stayed at ECMC for several days, during which time her hypertension and irregular heartbeat improved. ( Id., p. 6.)
On October 8, while still at ECMC, Baity was seen by Dr. Ralph Benedict, M.D., also a non-party, who performed the neuropsychological evaluation ordered earlier by Dr. Rados. ( Id., p. 6.) Dr. Benedict concluded that Baity was suffering from dementia and lacked the capacity to live independently. He recommended that Baity be discharged to a supervised environment. ( Id.)
This recommendation prompted Baity's move to Grace Manor, a nearby nursing home. This decision appears to have been the subject of a dispute within the Britt family. Carmen Britt claims that she and Baity “protested and objected to Ms. Baity's involuntary confinement at Grace Manor.” (Pl.'s Statement, ¶ 35.) However, Cindy Paluh, a discharge planner for ECMC, discussed Baity's move with Baity's brother, J.D. Britt, and sister-in-law, Mattie Britt (Carmen Britt's uncle and aunt). (Defs.' Statement, p. 6.) They all agreed that Baity should be discharged to Grace Manor. Defendants also assert that Baity never objected to her treatment at ECMC or her discharge to Grace Manor. ( Id., p. 7.)
It is undisputed that Baity never signed a consent form for her admission to Grace Manor. (Pl.'s Statement, ¶ 45.) Defendants, however, claim that Baity could not make this choice on her own due to her condition, that her brother and sister-in-law consented to the move on her behalf, and that Carmen Britt missed appointments and failed to return calls regarding review of the form. (Defs.' Statement, p. 9.)
In any event, on October 10, 2003, Baity was moved to Grace Manor and was assigned to the third floor dementia unit per Dr. Benedict's diagnosis. ( Id., p. 7.) Nelda Lawler, M.D. was the floor's staff physician. She evaluated Baity and prescribed several medications, including the anti-psychotic Risperdal®.6 Britt claims that any treatment Baity received at Grace Manor was against her will.
As part of that treatment, New York State law requires that patients in long-term care facilities receive periodic dental treatment. On October 24, 2003, professionals for McClure Dental Services, who provide dental services to individuals at Grace Manor, examined Baity and recommended the extraction of three teeth. ( Id., pp. 8–9.) Dr. Priclla Adams, D.D.S. of McClure Dental performed the procedure two weeks later.7 ( Id., p. 9.) Britt claims that Baity never consented to such a procedure and that Dr. Lawler unlawfully signed the consent form in place of Baity. (Pl.'s Statement, ¶ 51.)
Britt, believing her aunt's stay at Grace Manor was improper and illegal, commenced state habeas corpus proceedings against Grace Manor in an effort to secure Baity's release. Grace Manor claims to have never received any complaints from Britt before learning of the habeas corpus action. (Defs.' Statement, p. 9.) However, after appearing in state court on December 23, 2003, the parties held a meeting to discuss Baity's status. ( Id.) They agreed that Baity could go home if she was provided twenty-four hour care. ( Id.) After several scheduling problems, Baity was finally discharged on January 10, 2004. ( Id., p. 10.)
According to Defendants, following her discharge, Grace Manor learned that Baity was alone for at least two consecutive days. ( Id.) With this information, Grace Manor called Adult Protective Services to report what they considered to be a dangerous situation. ( Id., p. 11.) Britt alleges that, in fact, Grace Manor made numerous calls, some of which were directed at herself and Baity. Considering the calls unjustified and harassing, she ultimately petitioned for and received a state-court injunction prohibiting any Grace Manor employee from contacting Baity or herself. (“Final Order”; Docket No. 312–11, Exhibit Y.)
While these events were unfolding, the Housing Authority was also pursuing an eviction proceeding against Baity because she had underpaid her rent. (Pl.'s Statement, ¶ 61.) Some time in late August or early September 2003, Baity had mistakenly paid only $100.88 for her regular monthly rent payment of $188.00. 8 ( Id., ¶ 3.) However, the proceeding was eventually halted and the matter settled.
Britt commenced this action in New York State Supreme Court, County of Erie on December 28, 2005 (Docket No. 1.) Defendants removed to this Court on January 26, 2006 (Docket No. 1.) Britt moved for leave to amend her complaint on October 17, 2006, which this Court granted in part and denied in part. (Docket No. 182.) Motions to strike portions of the amended complaint on behalf of all Defendants were filed on November 26, 2007. (Docket Nos. 188–192, 194.) This Court granted in part and denied in part those motions on September 30, 2008, 2008 WL 4501929. (Docket No. 235.) Pursuant to that order, Britt filed a second amended complaint on November 6, 2008. (Docket No. 239.)
On July 26, 2010, this Court accepted Magistrate Judge Kenneth Schroeder's Report, Recommendation, and Order (Docket No. 268) which, noting Jeri Giwa's death, dismissed Giwa from the lawsuit and denied Britt leave to substitute a party. (Docket No. 286.)
Individually or collectively, each party now moves for summary judgment.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryant v. Steele
...; Middleton v. United States, No. 10–CV–6057 (JFB)(ETB), 2012 WL 394559, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2012) ; Britt v. Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth., 827 F.Supp.2d 198, 206 (W.D.N.Y.2011) ; Amofa v. Bronx–Lebanon Hosp. Center, No. 05 Civ. 9230(SHS), 2006 WL 3316278, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006) ; T......
-
McQueen v. White
...the custodial physician-patient relationship from the 'ordinary' physician-patient relationship." Britt v. Buffalo Mun. Housing Auth., 827 F. Supp.2d 198, 206 (W.D.N.Y.2011), quoting West at 57, fn. 15. {¶ 15} Appellant contends that the "fact he was not physically in custody," i.e., a pris......