Bryant v. Steele
| Decision Date | 21 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–cv–5234 ADSGRB.,13–cv–5234 ADSGRB. |
| Parties | Patrick BRYANT, Plaintiff, v. Kristen STEELE, personally, Thomas Vertrees, M.D., personally, David Marguilies, M.D., personally, Brenda Garro, M.D., personally, Theddeus Ihenacho, M.D., personally, Abid Iqbal Khan, M.D., personally, Lloyd Sooku, M.D., personally, and Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Robert J. Malone, Esq., Law Office of Ray Malone, PLLC, Miller Place, NY, William M. Brooks, Esq., Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, Civil Rights Clinic, Central Islip, NY, for the Plaintiff.
Ralph Pernick, Assistant Attorney General, New York State Attorney General's Office, Mineola, NY, for Defendants Kristen Steele, personally; Thomas Vertrees, M.D., personally, David Margulies, M.D., personally; and Brenda Garro, M.D., personally.
Brian E. Lee, Esq., Ivone, Devine & Jensen, Lake Success, NY, for Defendant Theddeus Ihenacho, M.D., personally and Abid Iqbal Khan, M.D., personally.
James M. Skelly, Esq., Robert E. Fein, Esq., Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Elmsford, NY, for Defendant Lloyd Sooku, M.D., personally.
Greg M. Mondelli, Esq., Lewis, Johs, Avallone, Aviles, Melville, NY, for Defendant Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc.
DECISION AND ORDER
This civil rights and medical malpractice action arises out of the involuntary hospitalization of the Plaintiff (“Patrick Bryant”) by the former Defendant Stony Brook University Medical Center (“Stony Brook”) and the Defendant Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc. (“Brunswick”) in March 2011.
The third amended complaint, formally interposed on December 24, 2014, raises the following claims: (1) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Defendants Kristen Steele, Dr. Thomas Vertrees, Dr. David Margulies, Dr. Brenda Garro, Dr. Theddeus Ihenacho, and Dr. Abid Iqbal Khan, alleging a violation of the right against unreasonable seizures as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 substantive due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment against the Defendants Dr. Ihenacho and Dr. Khan; (3) medical malpractice claims against the Defendants Dr. Garro, Dr. Ihenacho, Dr. Khan, and Brunswick; and (4) a claim against the Defendants Dr. Lloyd Sookhu and Brunswick for any Medicaid or Medicare charges collected as a result of treatment to the Plaintiff that he must pay to satisfy any Medicaid or Medicare liens.
Prior to the filing of the third amended complaint, on November 18, 2014, the Defendants Drs. Ihenacho and Khan moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ.P.”) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the federal claims against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alternatively, Ihenacho and Khan request that the Court convert their motion to a Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 motion for summary judgment. Drs. Ihenacho and Khan also request that, in the event this Court dismisses the federal causes of action against them, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims against them.
The Court treats the instant motion as directed at the later-filed third amended complaint. For the reasons set forth, the motion is denied.
Unless otherwise stated, the following facts are drawn from the third amended complaint and construed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Suffolk County in New York State.
The Defendant Kristen Steele was at all relevant times a member of the Mobile Crisis Unit operated by the New York State Office of Mental Health in Suffolk County (the “OMH”).
The Defendant Dr. Vertrees was at all relevant times a designee of the Director of Community Services in Suffolk County.
The Defendant Dr. Marguiles was at all relevant times a designee of the Director of Community Services in Suffolk County.
The Defendant Dr. Garro was at all relevant times a psychiatrist employed by Stony Brook Medical Center. Stony Brook is operated by the State of New York, and, in turn, operates a Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program (the “CPEP”).
The Defendant Dr. Ihenacho was at all relevant times a psychiatrist employed by the Defendant Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc. which is licensed by the OMH to provide psychiatric services.
The Defendant Dr. Khan was at all relevant times a psychiatrist employed by Brunswick.
Finally, the Defendant Dr. Sookhu was at all relevant times a non-psychiatric physician employed by Brunswick.
In late 2010 and into the early part of 2011, the Plaintiff allegedly received several telephone calls from unidentified persons that he perceived to be threatening. On February 7, 2011, the Plaintiff sought assistance from the Suffolk County Police Department to investigate these calls.
Between March 14, 2011 and March 21, 2011, the Plaintiff twice contacted the Internal Affairs Division of the Suffolk County Police Department to complain about the lack of progress of police work in connection with the allegedly threatening telephone calls. However, the Suffolk County Police perceived the Plaintiff's reports to them and his behavior as manifestations of mental illness.
At some point, the police contacted the Mobile Crisis Unit operated by the OMH to evaluate the Plaintiff. Part of the function of the Mobile Crisis Unit is to promptly assess the need for emergency mental health evaluations for individuals deemed to be in crisis.
On March 21, 2011, Steele, a social worker who was part of the Mobile Crisis Unit, accompanied by two Suffolk County Police officers, approached the Plaintiff's home. The Plaintiff met them outside his home and the police engaged the Plaintiff in discussion.
During the conversation with the police, the Plaintiff mentioned that he had old hunting rifles in his home. The rifles were collector's items: a Marlin; a World War II British rifle; a World War I Eddystone; and a 1930's Spanish Mauser. The rifles were kept in a glass display in the Plaintiff's bedroom, were not loaded, and some had never been used by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff kept the rifles in a display cabinet as collector's items because he no longer hunted deer as a hobby that he once enjoyed with his friends during the 1980s. According to the Plaintiff, he had not used or intended to use the rifles since 1989 when he was issued his last hunting permit.
When the police asked the Plaintiff for more information about the rifles, he explained that he had four hunting rifles which he had not used in twenty-three years and had no intentions of using them. The Plaintiff further stated to the police that the rifles were dusty and therefore inoperable in their current condition. Shortly thereafter, the conversation ended, the police and social workers permitted the Plaintiff to return to his home.
The Plaintiff alleges that, notwithstanding his logical and coherent responses to the questions, Steele determined that the Plaintiff manifested symptoms of mental illness that required psychiatric evaluation.
Steele was never directly responsible for the Plaintiff's treatment prior to or subsequent to March 21, 2011. Steele communicated with the Directors of Community Services Designees, Drs. Vertrees and Margulies in connection with the removal of the Plaintiff from his home pursuant to the provisions of New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.45. Steele reported to Drs. Vertrees and Margulies that the Plaintiff suffered from a mental illness for which immediate care and treatment in a hospital was appropriate.
The Plaintiff alleges that he never suffered from a mental illness for which immediate care and treatment in a hospital was appropriate and which was likely to result in serious harm to himself or others as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 9.45. The Plaintiff further alleges that Steele had no basis to believe that the Plaintiff suffered from a mental illness for which immediate care and treatment was appropriate and which was likely to result in serious harm to himself or others as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 9.45.
Nonetheless, on March 21, 2011, Drs. Vertrees and Margulies authorized the involuntary transport of the Plaintiff to the CPEP operated by Stony Brook pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.45. The police then seized the Plaintiff at his home and transferred him to the CPEP department at Stony Brook for psychiatric evaluation. The Plaintiff did not resist and left peacefully with the officers. However, the Plaintiff did not consent to any psychiatric services. The officers also seized the Plaintiff's collector's rifles from the display cabinet in his home.
At Stony Brook, the Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Garro for “approximately three minutes.” Dr. Garro apparently asked the Plaintiff why the police brought him to the CPEP. The Plaintiff then described his attempts to seek police assistance in connection with the allegedly threatening phone calls and that earlier in the day, he “casually” mentioned the collector's rifles in the display cabinet to the police officers. Dr. Garro did not ask any further questions regarding the rifles, including why the Plaintiff had them, their condition; or whether they were loaded or in a locked area.
Further, Dr. Garro did not inquire whether the Plaintiff intended to use the guns for any purpose, including self-protection; whether he intended to harm anyone or himself; or whether he had any violent thoughts. In this regard, the Plaintiff claims that he never had any thoughts or plans to use the rifles.
Following this meeting, Dr. Garro concluded that the Plaintiff was manifesting symptoms of a mental illness and required an evaluation for immediate treatment in a hospital setting. Dr. Garro subsequently applied to involuntarily hospitalize the Plaintiff pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.37.
The Plaintiff maintains that in conducting a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryant v. Steele
...the Court addressed the state action issue when the Brunswick Defendants attempted to dismiss the action. Bryant v. Steele , 93 F. Supp. 3d 80 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (" Bryant II "). It summarized the case history of § 1983 claims against private hospitals and health care professionals, concluding......
-
Jackson v. Barden
...on their own independent medical judgment," the physicians would not have been state actors. Id. at 109. The court in Bryant v. Steele, 93 F. Supp. 3d 80 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), reached a similar conclusion. There, the district court upheld the sufficiency of a complaint alleging that after a stat......
-
M.C. v. Cnty. of Westchester, 16-CV-3013 (NSR)
...at 229; Hogan, 346 F. App'x at 629; Doe v. Rosenberg, 166 F.3d 507 (2d Cir. 1999); Jackson, 2018 WL 340014, at *13; Bryant v. Steele, 93 F. Supp. 3d 80, 87 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). In the seminal case on this issue, Doe v. Rosenberg, the Second Circuit adopted the "comprehensive and scholarly" dist......
-
Brown v. County of Jefferson
... ... remain against other defendants and the state law claims ... ‘form part of the same case or controversy.'” ... Bryant v. Steele, 93 F.Supp.3d 80, 94 (E.D.N.Y ... 2015) (quoting Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 ... F.3d 307, 325 (2d Cir.2002)) ... ...