Estate of Edward C. Gandy v. City of Millville
| Docket Number | 1:20-cv-00641 |
| Decision Date | 28 August 2023 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF EDWARD C. GANDY, JR. et al. Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MILLVILLE et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Andrew Brian Smith
SMITH & SCHWARTZSTEIN LLC
On behalf of Plaintiffs
Michael Barker
Jeffrey Paul Sarvas
On behalf of Defendants City of Millville, Millville Police Department, Jody Farabella, and Colt Gibson
On behalf of Defendants Cumberland County Guidance Center and Cumberland County Mental Health & Crisis Screening Facility
DUGHI, HEWITT & DOMALEWSKI, PC
On behalf of Defendant Victoria Elgulashvili, M.D
Michael G. Halpin
On behalf of Defendants Inspira Medical Centers, Inc. and Christal Hardin, R.N
John Patrick Carty
STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP
On behalf of Defendant Marie Hasson, M.D
Dominic A. Delaurentis, Jr
STAHL & DELAURENTIS, PC
On behalf of Defendants James J. Rogers
D.O. and Stephen Marc Scheinthal, M.D
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Inspira Medical Centers, Inc.'s (“Inspira”) Motion to Dismiss Direct Claims, (ECF No. 146), and Motion to Limit Damages. (ECF No. 139). For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Dismiss Direct Claims is GRANTED and the Motion to Limit Damages is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
This case arises from the death of Edward C. Gandy Jr. (the “Decedent” or “Mr. Gandy”), who was shot and killed by police on January 22, 2018. (Pl.'s Counterstatement of Material Facts, ECF No. 150-3, ¶ 58). Between November 2017 and January 2018, police on several occasions escorted Mr. Gandy to Inspira emergency rooms because of erratic behavior and suicidal ideation. (ECF No. 150-3, ¶ 4, 16, 27, 32).
On January 9, 2018, Mr. Gandy brought a knife to a Wawa, where he told a gas station attendant he wanted to die. (ECF No. 150-3, ¶ 30). When the police arrived, Mr. Gandy asked the officers to shoot him. (ECF No. 150-3, ¶ 31). Police then transported Mr. Gandy to an Inspira emergency room for psychiatric screening. (ECF No. 150-3, ¶ 32). On January 10, 2018, Mr. Gandy was involuntarily committed to the Bridgeton Mental Health Unit in Bridgeton, New Jersey. (ECF No. 150-3, ¶ 36-37). Mr. Gandy was discharged from involuntary commitment on January 18, 2018. (ECF No. 150-3, ¶ 53).
On January 22, 2018, police encountered Mr. Gandy in the parking lot of a Rite Aid pharmacy in the City of Millville, New Jersey. (ECF No. 150-3, ¶ 55-58). During this encounter, police shot and killed Mr. Gandy. (ECF No. 150-3, ¶ 58). The Decedent was transported by ambulance to Inspira Medical Center in Vineland, New Jersey, where he was pronounced dead. (ECF No. 150-3, ¶ 59).
Mr. Gandy's estate, by and through its administrator, Shane S. Gandy, and Shane S. Gandy in his individual capacity (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed their initial Complaint on January 17, 2020, alleging a violation of Mr. Gandy's federal civil rights and state law claims against the city of Millville, the Millville Police Department, individually named police officers, unnamed John Doe police officers, Cumberland County Guidance Center, Cumberland County Mental Health & Crisis Screening Facility, and John Doe Corporations and Entities. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiffs first amended their complaint on August 27, 2020, adding “Inspira Health Center Bridgeton, Mental Health Unit, and Inspira Medical Center” as defendants. (ECF No. 20). On September 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, adding Marie Hasson, M.D., the Center for Family Guidance, P.C., “John and Jane Does Center for Family Guidance, P.C. 1-10,” and Defendants Stephen Marc Scheinthal, D.O., and James J. Rogers, D.O. (ECF No. 58). In Plaintiffs' Third (and final) Amended Complaint, filed on November 23, 2021, Plaintiffs added Defendants Christal Hardin, R.N., and Victoria Eligulashvili, M.D. (ECF No. 71).
On October 7, 2022, this Court issued a Letter Opinion, (ECF No. 132), and an associated Order, (ECF No. 131), dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against defendants Christal Hardin, R.N., Victoria Eligulashvili, M.D., Stephen Marc Scheinthal, D.O., and James J. Rogers, D.O. And, on July 18, 2023, this Court issued a Letter Order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Center for Family Guidance, P.C. and Marie Hasson, M.D. (ECF No. 165).
Inspira filed the Motion to Limit Damages now before the Court on December 22, 2022. (ECF No. 139). Plaintiffs filed a Response on January 3, 2023, (ECF No. 142), to which Inspira replied on January 9, 2023. (ECF No. 144). Inspira filed the Motion to Dismiss Direct Claims now before the Court on January 17, 2023. (ECF No. 146). Plaintiffs responded to that motion on February 7, 2023, (ECF No. 146), and Inspira replied on February 16, 2023. (ECF No. 153).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), courts may grant summary judgment when a case presents “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”[1] A party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing the basis for its motion and must demonstrate that there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Baymont Franchise Sys. v. SB Hosp. Palm Springs, LLC, No. 19-06954, 2022 WL 2063623, at *3 (D.N.J. June 8, 2022) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).
A genuine dispute of material fact exists only when there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. Young v. United States, 152 F.Supp.3d 337, 345 (D.N.J. 2015). When courts consider the evidence presented by the parties, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 346.
To withstand a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must identify specific facts and affirmative evidence that contradict the moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). “[I]f the nonmovant's evidence is merely ‘colorable' or is ‘not significantly probative,' the court may grant summary judgment.” Messa v. Omaha Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 122 F.Supp.2d 523, 528 (D.N.J. 2000) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50); see Dunkin' Donuts Inc. v. Patel, 174 F.Supp.2d 202, 210 (D.N.J. 2001) (). However, “[if] reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence,” summary judgment is not appropriate. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250-51.
The New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act (“NJCIA”) limits the negligence liability of nonprofit hospitals to $250,000. N.J. STAT ANN. § 2A:53A-8. To fall within the protections of the NJCIA, a defendant must demonstrate: “(1) that the defendant is a charitable organization organized exclusively for hospital purposes, and (2) that the plaintiff was a beneficiary of its services.” Hottenstein v. City of Sea Isle City, 981 F.Supp.2d 292, 294 (D.N.J. 2013) (citing Mottola v. City of Union City, No. 05-3964, 2006 WL 2177405, at *2 (D.N.J. July 31, 2006).
Inspira argues that Plaintiffs' direct claims against it should be dismissed because there exists no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Inspira employees engaged in conduct that could support such claims. Specifically, Inspira argues that Plaintiffs improperly attribute allegedly negligent conduct to Inspira when that conduct was undertaken by parties employed by separate entities. Plaintiffs respond that there exists a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any Inspira employee negligently treated Mr. Gandy.
Plaintiffs assert claims against Inspira for negligence, survivorship, and wrongful death. (Pl.'s Third Am. Compl., ECF No. 71, ¶ 113-135). However, Plaintiffs do not clearly identify the basis for these claims and instead leave this Court to divine their meaning. Accordingly, as best the Court can discern, Plaintiffs ground their claims in alleged medical malpractice on the part of Inspira.[2] To succeed in a claim for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove, through expert testimony: (1) an applicable standard of care, (2) a deviation from this standard of care, (3) injury, and (4) proximate causation between the breach and the injury. Jackson v. Fauver, 334 F.Supp.2d 697, 741 (D.N.J. 2004) (citing Teilhaber v. Greene, 727 A.2d 518 ( N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 1999)).
Presumably to this end, Plaintiffs provide the Confidential Psychiatric Consultation Report of Vivian Chern Shnaidman, M.D. (the “Schnaidman Report” or the “Report”). (ECF No. 146-13). The Schnaidman Report describes only one substantive deviation from an applicable standard of care-Dr. Marie Hasson's decision to discharge Mr. Gandy from compulsory psychiatric treatment. (ECF No. 146-13, p. 16) (“The deviation in the standard of care lies in the alacrity with which Mr. Gandy was discharged . . . .”). The Report speculates but does not conclude that Inspira's electronic records deviated from statutory requirements. (ECF No. 146-13, p. 14). And the Report also offers the bare assertion that “the care provided by Dr. Hasson, the Inspira Health Network, and the Family Guidance Center was below the acceptable standard of care.” (ECF No. 146-13, p. 17). However, speculation and bald conclusions of this sort cannot support a medical malpractice claim. Even affording all deference to the non-moving party, the decision to...
To continue reading
Request your trial