Byers v. City of Richmond

• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:23cv801 (RCY)
• Decision Date: 26 August 2024
• Parties: MARGARET P. BYERS, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

1

MARGARET P. BYERS, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, et al. Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:23cv801 (RCY)

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

August 26, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roderick C. Young United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on the presently pending Motion for Leave to File Video Exhibit in Support of Motion to Dismiss (“Motion for Leave,” ECF No. 19) and Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17). These motions were jointly filed by Defendant Chippenham & Johnston-Willis Hospitals, Inc. and Defendant David R. Hyde, Jr. Both motions have been fully briefed, and the Court dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court, and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. E.D Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(J). For the reasons stated herein, the Court will deny the Motion for Leave (ECF No. 19) and grant-in-part and deny-in-part the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No 17).

I. BACKGROUND

When deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court “accept[s] as true the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations and views all facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff.” Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). Such a standard, however, does not require accepting any unreasonable inferences or a plaintiff's legal conclusions. Id. Additionally, a court may consider any documents attached to the complaint. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 448 (4th Cir. 2011). Applying these standards, the Court construes the facts in the Complaint as follows.

A. The “Crisis Triage Center” at Tucker Pavilion

Chippenham & Johnston-Willis Hospitals, Inc. (“CJW”) operates Chippenham Hospital, a medical and surgical facility located at 7101 Jahnke Road, in Richmond, Virginia. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 14. CJW also provides behavioral health services through its “Tucker Pavilion” at this location. Id. ¶ 14. CJW touts Tucker Pavilion as a “safe haven and treatment center for children, teens, adults and seniors who need mental health services in Richmond, Virginia, providing compassionate care for those suffering from severe mental illness.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

For “many years prior to and continuing through July 2023, [C]W] and the [Richmond Police Department (“RPD”)] have engaged in a partnership whereby the RPD places officers inside of [Chippenham Hospital] to be stationed within . . . Tucker Pavilion.” Id. ¶ 15. This partnership traces its roots back to October 2013, when officials from the City of Richmond (the “City”) and CJW unveiled the “Crisis Triage Center”^[1] at Tucker Pavilion.^[2] Id. According to CJW and the RPD, the partnership underlying the Crisis Triage Center “brings together law enforcement, medical, psychiatric and emergency mental health services in a single location.” Id. Proponents of this arrangement claimed that it would “enable law enforcement personnel to connect individuals in mental health crisis with critically needed evaluation and treatment services without delay and to divert them from unnecessary and inappropriate placement in jails and involvement in the justice system.” Id.

The Crisis Triage Center at Tucker Pavilion is physically comprised of a “small office used by a nurse-receptionist and another locked room known as the ‘patient interview room' or ‘search room' that is equipped with a one-way observational window.” Id. At all times relevant to this matter, “at least one officer from the RPD [was] stationed in the Crisis Triage Center inside [Tucker Pavilion]” around the clock. Id. RPD officers working within or stationed at Tucker Pavilion “perform[] such work for [C]W] and the RPD as ‘Extra-Duty' officers of the RPD.” Id. ¶ 16 (emphasis in original). RPD General Order 4-6 contains guidelines and definitions relevant to this type of “extra-duty” work. Id.; see Compl. Ex. B (“RPD General Order”) 2^[3], ECF No. 1-3. In relevant part, “Extra-Duty” work is defined as “any outside employment that is conditioned upon the actual or potential use of law enforcement powers.” RPD General Order 2 (emphasis added).^[4]

Pursuant to the arrangement outlined above, the RPD controls the stationing of RPD officers working within Tucker Pavilion. Id. ¶ 17. The RPD also “control[s] the rate of pay for the officers, generally m times the officer's rate of pay, require[s] that the officers wear their uniforms and be fully armed, and control[s] the roster of officers who [a]re dispatched to Tucker Pavilion through an RPD police coordinator.”^[5] Id. CJW, in turn, uses these “extra-duty” officers-who maintain their full panoply of law enforcement powers-“as security and for the management of psychiatric patients with serious mental illnesses.” Id.; see Compl. ¶¶ 16-17; RPD General Order 2. Despite this alleged delegation of certain police powers to CJW, the RPD did not provide the officers stationed in Tucker Pavilion with any “specialized training for working with mentally ill patients in a medical setting.” Compl. ¶ 17. RPD also “failed to establish any guidelines regarding the RPD officers' role in the behavior management of mentally ill patients in a psychiatric hospital, particularly with respect to the use of force and . . . restraints and seclusion with mentally ill patients.” Id. While CJW willingly accepted and used RPD officers “as security and to manage psychiatric patients,” it likewise “failed to provide specialized training to the RPD officers for the management of psychiatric patients in a medical setting.” Id. ¶ 18. In fact, CJW expressly and purposefully “excluded RPD from the application of its policies relative to the use of force and use of restraints with patients.”^[6] Id.

B. Prior Incidents and Alleged Conditions at CJW

CJW is a subsidiary of HCA Healthcare, Inc. (“HCA”), “the largest hospital company in America.” Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs allege that “HCA routinely engages in practices that maximize profits at the expense of patient care [and] working conditions.” Id. For instance, “in Virginia, HCA staffs its hospitals at approximately 32% below the national average.” Id. Plaintiffs allege that this understaffing has created an environment at Chippenham Hospital-and by extension, Tucker Pavilion-wherein diminished and improper care for patients like their late son, Charles M. Byers (“Mr. Byers”), is commonplace. Id. (alleging that CJW's understaffing “directly contribut[ed] to diminished patient care,” and “played a significant role in laying the groundwork for the incidents complained of herein”). Plaintiffs further aver that the unchecked presence and actions of RPD officers at Tucker Pavilion also significantly contributed to the issues raised herein. See id. ¶ 24.

Backing up their allegations with statistics, Plaintiffs note that, over the past ten years, there have been roughly three times as many incidents “involving RPD and . . . patients of [Chippenham Hospital] or others located [there],” id., than the next closest Richmond-area hospital:

One need only compare the incidents involving the RPD at [Chippenham Hospital] to the incidents involving the RPD at other hospitals located in the City . . . to understand how strong and pervasive the presence of RPD officers at [Chippenham Hospital] has been and how much [C]W] has used the police powers of the RPD for patient management during their partnership For the same ten-year period, October 13, 2013, to October 13, 2023, there were approximately:

• 1200 incidents involving RPD officers at [Chippenham Hospital] but only-

• 200 incidents involving RPD officers at VCU/MCV hospital[;]

• 380 incidents involving RPD officers at Richmond Community Hospital[;]

• 180 incidents involving RPD officers at Retreat Hospital[.]

Id.; see id. Despite the “obvious and pervasive RPD presence at [Chippenham Hospital]” revealed by these statistics, Plaintiffs note that the RPD has conducted “virtually no internal investigations by the RPD into the many incidents involving RPD officers and the patients of [Chippenham Hospital].” Id. In fact, in the last three years, the only investigation into such a police-patient incident concerned the facts underlying this very case. Id. And even in this “rare instance (first and only?) in which the RPD performed an internal investigation of incidents involving RPD officers at [C]W], the RPD determined that ‘no improper action' was taken” by its officer(s). Id. Plaintiffs suggest that this lack of investigations strengthens their claims, “as it further illustrates that the RPD sanctions and approves of actions by its officers working at [Chippenham Hospital]” that violate the federally protected rights of CJW's patients. Id.

Plaintiffs next reference numerous patient and employee reviews that are purportedly indicative of CJW's “understaffing and . . . use of RPD officers to bully and manage mentally ill patients, with no oversight . . ., as part of the partnership between the RPD and [C]W].” Id. ¶ 25. A small sampling of these reviews is included below:

[Patient Reviews]

“They treat depression like it's illegal. You get treated like an inmate.”

“Tuckers [Pavilion] is a HORRIBLE place. I wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy.... It feels more like a jail than a hospital.”

“This place should not be in business. They treat patients like inmates. They try to talk you in to saying something that would enable them to lock you down for 72 hours or more. Some of the nicer staff that actually have compassion confirmed this was the case and that I should complain. This facility is [like] a jail cell.”

“You're better off in jail....The nurses are callous and could

...