English v. Allegheny Cnty.
| Decision Date | 30 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 18-651 |
| Parties | CARL ENGLISH, Plaintiff, v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, D. W. STECHSCHULTE, JR., KELLY VICTOR, RACHEL ALEXANDER, JANE DOE CERTIFIED NURSE PRACTITIONERS, and JANE DOE REGISTERED NURSES, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Pending before the Court are Motions to Dismiss filed on behalf of Defendants Allegheny County, ECF No. 39, Kelly Victor, ECF No. 48, and D.W. Stechschulte, Jr. M.D. and Rachel Alexander, CRNP, ECF No. 51. For the following reasons, the Motions to Dismiss are granted as to Counts V and VI of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, but are denied as to all remaining claims.
Plaintiff Carl English ("Plaintiff" or "English"), a former inmate at the Allegheny County Jail ("ACJ"), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with a Complaint against Allegheny County and certain individuals alleged to have been involved in providing medical care to him at ACJ. ECF No. 1. After the filing of a Notice of Intention to Enter Judgment, ECF No. 17, and Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 20 and 24, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, ECF No. 31, and now names as Defendants Allegheny County, Allegheny County employee Kelly Victor, RN, and Allegheny Health Network medical professionals D.W. Stechschulte, Jr., M.D., Rachel Alexander, CRNP. Plaintiff alleges that each of the individual defendants acted under color of state law and, in accordance with the policies, customs and practices of ACJ and, based upon their individual intentional acts and/or ACJ policies and practices, violated Plaintiff's civil rights.
In particular, Plaintiff claims Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights (Counts I - IV). Plaintiff further claims that Allegheny County violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., (Count V) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA"), 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. (Count VI). Finally, Plaintiff brings state common law negligence claims against each medical provider involved in his care at ACJ (Counts VII - IX).
All Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, ECF Nos. 39, 48, and 51, asserting that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has filed a consolidated Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, ECF No. 55, and Defendant Allegheny County has filed its Brief in Reply, ECF No. 56. The motions are ripe for consideration.1
At this stage of the litigation and in the context of the pending Motions to Dismiss, the following facts alleged in the Amended Complaint are accepted as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007).
Plaintiff was incarcerated at ACJ from approximately June 3, 2016, through February 27, 2017. ECF No. 31 ¶ 14. Upon entry at ACJ, Plaintiff was medically processed and screened. He provided his medical history to those assigned as his treating medical staff, including Dr. Stechschulte, CRNP Alexander, and RN Victor (collectively, the "Medical Defendants"). Id. ¶ 15, 16. At that time, and throughout his incarceration, the Medical Defendants were provided and/or prepared records that identified Plaintiff as having diabetes, leg lymphedema, and neuropathy. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff's intake records reflect that he had suffered prior toe amputations on his right foot due to his diabetic and neuropathic condition, as well as a history of ulcers and wounds. Id. ¶ 18. In light of this history, Plaintiff was classified as a high risk for serious medical needs. Id. ¶ 19.
Plaintiff alleges that the Medical Defendants received daily reports concerning his medical status, and because of his high-risk status, each was required to timely evaluate Plaintiff's medical condition if and when manifestations of his diseases presented. Id. ¶¶ 21, 23. In accordance with ACJ policy and practice, the named Medical Defendants received notification of any sick call request submitted by Plaintiff, and each was authorized to make medical treatment recommendations, and/or take necessary medical measures for Plaintiff's assessment, treatment, and evaluation. Id. ¶¶ 28, 29.
Plaintiff alleges that beginning in June 2016, Plaintiff submitted numerous sick call requests seeking medication for his diabetes and neuropathy that were ignored. On August 12,2016, a corrections officer alerted medical personnel regarding obvious swelling and increased symptoms, and requested that Plaintiff be seen that day. Three days later, Plaintiff was seen by CRNP Alexander, who did not examine Plaintiff's feet or perform an individualized assessment of his condition. One week later, Dr. Stechsculte reviewed Plaintiff's medical records related to his sick call requests, but did not meet with Plaintiff or provide any follow up care, despite indications that Plaintiff's records showed dangerously high blood glucose levels, foot pain, swelling and cracking, nausea and loss of appetite. Thereafter, Plaintiff continued to report his worsening condition and submitted sick call requests, each of which remained unanswered. Id. ¶¶ 31 - 59.
Beginning in November 2016, Plaintiff reported directly to CRNP Alexander and RN Victor that he was experiencing pain, chills, foot swelling, headaches, blurred vision, loss of appetite, nausea, and vomiting. Id. ¶ 59. Despite the continuation and worsening of these symptoms throughout December 2016, Plaintiff alleges CRNP Alexander and RN Victor failed to treat his obvious medical distress, and refused to take medical action to treat or care for him. Id. ¶ 60-65. In late December 2016, CRNP Alexander and/or RN Victor reported Plaintiff's worsening condition to Dr. Stechschulte, who failed to take any medical action to treat him. Id. ¶ 66. Plaintiff continued to request medical treatment through early to mid-January 2017, and he was ultimately seen on January 14, 2017, where it was noted that he had a wound to right little toe which was odorous and bleeding. Id. ¶ 76. Despite the record of his condition, he remained untreated by Dr. Stechschulte. Id. ¶ 79.
On January 20, 2017, Plaintiff was rushed to Allegheny General Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a severe diabetic foot abscess and deep tissue infection. Id. ¶¶ 80-83. Plaintiff's right fifth toe was amputated on January 23, 2017, and he was discharged from the hospital onJanuary 25, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 87-88. Plaintiff alleges that the infection which began and remained untreated at ACJ eventually spread to his right leg. Despite continued medical treatment after his release from ACJ, Plaintiff suffered the amputation of his right leg. Id. ¶¶ 89-94.
Plaintiff alleges that while incarcerated at ACJ, he was aware that other diabetic inmates suffered unstable glucose levels, inadequate diabetes treatment management, and that this inadequate treatment led to at least one other inmate suffering a foot amputation. Id. ¶¶ 50-56. Plaintiff also learned that other diabetics at ACJ suffered severe medical conditions causing emergency situations and surgeries, because of inadequate diabetic care. Id. ¶ 57.
In assessing the sufficiency of the complaint pursuant to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint and all reasonable factual inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202, 205 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court, however, need not accept bald assertions or inferences drawn by the plaintiff if they are unsupported by the facts set forth in the complaint. See California Pub. Empl. Ret. Sys. v. The Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004), citing Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Nor must the Court accept legal conclusions set forth as factual allegations. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id., citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). The United States Supreme Court has held that a complaint is properly dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) where it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," id. at 570, or where the factual content does not allow the court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v.Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). See Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) ().
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has prescribed the following three-step approach to determine the sufficiency of a complaint:
First, the court must 'tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.' Second, the court should identify allegations that, 'because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.' Finally, 'where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.'
Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011), citing Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010)(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, 679).
To continue reading
Request your trial