Eldridge v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn.
| Decision Date | 23 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:19-cv-02461-JPM-cgc |
| Parties | CHARLES ELDRIDGE and JAMIE ELDRIDGE, Plaintiffs, v. SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, and CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Before the Court are Shelby County's October 10, 2019 Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 31) and CorVel Enterprise Comp Inc.'s (hereinafter "CorVel") October 14, 2019 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32). Shelby County moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiffs Charles and Jamie Eldridge's substantive due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and their various state law claims. (ECF No 31-1 at PageID 131-32.) Shelby County argues, "Plaintiffs' allegations do not make out a [s]ubstantive [d]ue [p]rocess violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1983)." (Id. at PageID 131.) Shelby County also argues that "Plaintiffs' state law claims are precluded by the civil rights exception to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act . . . ." (Id.)
CorVel moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims. (ECF No. 32.) CorVel argues that Plaintiffs have insufficiently alleged their claims of negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium and punitive damages. (ECF Nos. 32, 32-1.) Specifically, CorVel argues that Charles Eldridge is not an intended beneficiary of the on-the-job-injury-policy ("OJI policy") contract between Shelby County and CorVel, thereby precluding Plaintiffs from asserting that CorVel owed Eldridge a duty for purposes of their negligence, gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract claims. (ECF No. 32-1.)
For the reasons set forth below, Shelby County's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and CorVel's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
This action arises out of two accidental overdoses experienced by Plaintiff Charles Eldridge while working for the Shelby County Sheriff's Office. Eldridge is a narcotics officer with the Shelby County Sheriff's Office. (Amended Complaint, ECF No. 29 ¶ 6.) He began working as a narcotics officer on September 2, 1997, attaining the rank of sergeant. (ECF No. 25 at PageID 92.) Plaintiffs allege that on July 31, 2018, Eldridge was exposed to the narcotic Fentanyl and suffered an accidental overdose while transporting drug-related evidence to the Shelby County Sheriff's Office building in his duty-issued vehicle. (ECF No. 29 ¶ 8.) Eldridge allegedly self-administered two doses of Narcan, a drug designed to counteract the physiological effects of narcotics. (Id.) Immediately following the overdose, Eldridge was transported toBaptist East Hospital. (Id. ¶ 10.) Eldridge "returned to duty with no issues the following day . . . while his [duty-issued] vehicle was 'decontaminated' by the department." (Id. at ¶ 11.)
Plaintiffs allege that traces of Fentanyl entered the air conditioning system of Eldridge's duty-issued vehicle. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs assert that Shelby County was "well aware of several professional mitigation experts that could come and clean the car" following Eldridge's first overdose, but that Shelby County instead "chose to use its own personnel who were not professionally trained to clean the car to save money." (Id. ¶ 12.)
Plaintiffs allege that on August 15, 2018, two weeks after Eldridge's first accidental overdose, Eldridge suffered a second accidental Fentanyl overdose in the same duty-issued vehicle. (Id. ¶ 13.) This overdose allegedly occurred after Eldridge turned on the vehicle's air-conditioning system. (Id.) Eldridge "again had to self-administer two doses of Narcan and received emergency medical treatment [] at Baptist East Hospital for Fentanyl overdose." (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiffs allege that since his second accidental overdose, Eldridge suffers from panic attacks and anxiety. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs also allege that Eldridge has experienced suicidal ideations and that he has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"), preventing him from continuing to work as a law enforcement officer. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 29.) These conditions allegedly prevented Eldridge from "tak[ing] his Lieutenants exam[,] which would have been a promotion for him with increase[d] pay and pension." (Id. ¶ 29.)
Plaintiffs assert that CorVel, in its role as third-party administrator of Shelby County's OJI policy, refused to authorize Eldridge's necessary medical treatment following his second accidental Fentanyl overdose. (Id. ¶ 26.) Plaintiffs allege that CorVel "delayed and failed to provide adequate care to Mr. Eldridge . . . exacerbating Mr. Eldridge's conditions resulting from the second Fentanyl overdose." (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that despite authorizingEldridge's request to see a psychologist, CorVel refused to approve Eldridge's requests for in-patient treatment and psychiatric medical treatment. (Id.) Plaintiffs contend that this denial of benefits worsened Eldridge's condition by delaying his access to necessary medical and psychiatric treatment, thereby exacerbating Eldridge's mental harms, including his diagnosed PTSD. (Id.)
Plaintiffs assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims. (Id. at PageID 115-20.) Plaintiffs assert a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim and state law claims of negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium against Shelby County. (Id. at PageID 115-19.) Plaintiffs also assert state law claims of negligence, gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and loss of consortium against CorVel. (Id. at PageID 117-20.) Plaintiffs seek to recover punitive damages from both Defendants. (Id. at PageID 120-21.)
Based on the factual allegations detailed supra, Plaintiffs assert the following:
Defendant Shelby County either intentionally or recklessly, whether as a result of policies, practices, customs, or procedures, or as a result of ineffective, non-existent, or inadequate training and education of its employees, caused its agents and employees to engage in the actions or inactions complained of herein, and such policies and training were a moving force responsible for the acts or omissions of its agents and employees and the violations of rights of the Plaintiff, Mr. Eldridge, as complained of herein.
(Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiffs allege that Shelby County's "gross negligence and/or reckless indifference, evidenced by its failure to have Mr. Eldridge's duty-issued vehicle professionally, thoroughly, and appropriately decontaminated of Fentanyl," caused Eldridge's mental and emotional harms. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiffs contend that the Shelby County Sheriff's Office, "operating under a policy of inadequate training or supervision[,] engaged in [] conduct of reckless indifference to thesafety and physical well-being of its officers by its failure to properly remediate the vehicle" following its contamination with Fentanyl. (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiffs assert that Shelby County failed to put in place a training program to instruct its employees on the proper methods for "the decontamination of vehicles and objects contaminated with controlled substances such as Fentanyl." (Id. ¶ 21.) Plaintiffs argue that such deficient cleaning and training "shocks the conscience, especially after a known contaminating event." (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.)
As to CorVel, Plaintiffs contend that CorVel breached its contractual and independent legal duties owed to Eldridge arising out of CorVel's role as third-party administrator of the OJI policy. (Id. ¶¶ 27-29.) With respect to its breach of contract claim against CorVel, Plaintiffs contend that the contract between CorVel and Shelby County "to administer Shelby County's OJI policy is clearly intended to give a benefit to those who work for the county such as the Plaintiff herein." (Id. ¶ 24.)
Plaintiffs filed this action on July 19, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants filed their first Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss on August 15, 2019. (ECF Nos. 12, 15.) Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint on October 3, 2019. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiffs also filed their Response to Defendants' First Motions to Dismiss on October 3, 2019. (ECF No. 30.) The Court entered an Order Denying Defendants' First Motions to Dismiss as Moot on October 21, 2019. (ECF No. 33.) Shelby County filed its second Rule 12(b)(6) Motion on October 10, 2019. (ECF No. 31.) Likewise, CorVel filed its own Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on October 14, 2019. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiffs filed Responses to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss on November 7, 2019, and November 11, 2019. (ECF Nos. 34, 35.) Shelby County filed its Reply brief on November 18, 2019. (ECF No. 36.) On January 13, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs'Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record and to File the Contract Between Defendants CorVel Enterprise Comp., Inc. and Shelby County, Tennessee. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff subsequently filed the OJI-policy contract on January 14, 2020. (ECF No. 40.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows dismissal of a complaint that "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." A Rule 12(b)(6) motion permits the "defendant to test whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is entitled to legal relief even if everything alleged in the complaint is true." Mayer v. Mylod, 988 F.2d 635, 638 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Nishiyama v. Dickson Cnty., 814 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir. 1987)). A motion to dismiss only tests whether the plaintiff has pleaded a cognizable claim and allows the court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial