Frank v. Cascade Healthcare Cmty., Inc.

Decision Date06 March 2013
Docket NumberCase No. 6:11-cv-06402-AA
PartiesMINNY FRANK, Plaintiff, v. CASCADE HEALTHCARE COMMUNITY, INC. dba ST. CHARLES MEDICAL CENTER; EDWARD PALMER, MD; REBECCA TIMMS; SCOTT NAMANNY; THE CITY OF BEND; BEND POLICE DEPARTMENT; and CENTRAL OREGON EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, LLC; Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER

Minny Frank

Pro se plaintiff

Robert E. Franz, Jr.

Law Office of Robert E. Franz, Jr.

Attorney for defendants the City of Bend, the Bend Police

Department, Scott Namanny, and Ian Macdonnell

Steven P. Jones

Kirstin L. Abel

Keating Jones Hughes PC

Attorneys for defendants Cascade Healthcare Community, Inc.

d.b.a. St. Charles Medical Center, Rebecca Timms, Nichole

Ryan, Patricia Violet, Christine Huffman, Penni Lancaster,

Randal Mcbride, Jonathan Beutler, and Justin Nelson

Gordon L. Welborn

Erika Lyn Wilson

Hart Wagner, LLP

Karen M. O'Kasey

Hart Wagner, LLP

Attorneys for defendant Edward Palmer, M.D. and Central Oregon

Emergency Physicians, LLC

AIKEN, Chief Judge:

Defendants Edward Palmer, Central Oregon Emergency Physicians, LLC ("COEP"), the Bend Police Department,1 the City of Bend ("City"), Cascade Healthcare Community, Inc. d.b.a. St. Charles Medical Center ("SCMC"), Rebecca Timms, Nichole Ryan, Patricia Violet, Christine Huffman, Penni Lancaster, Randal Mcbride, Jonathan Beutler, and Justin Nelson move for summary judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R. 56, on all of plaintiff Minny Frank'sclaims.2 Plaintiff also filed two motions for partial summary judgment against Palmer, Timms, COEP, and SCMC. For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motions are granted and plaintiff's motions are denied. As a result, the claims remaining are those asserted against defendants Scott Namanny and Ian Macdonnell.

BACKGROUND

On January 13, 2010, after mixing three to four alcoholic beverages with at least a dozen prescription anti-anxiety pills, plaintiff became extremely intoxicated and repeatedly threatened her life in the presence of her husband. Plaintiff suffers from mental illness and has previously been hospitalized for her psychological issues; knowing this and fearing for her well-being, plaintiff's husband called 911. Officers Namanny, Paschke, and Macdonnell were dispatched to plaintiff's residence. When they arrived, plaintiff was being restrained by her husband in a room with two guns, one of which was loaded. Plaintiff was uncooperative with the police and, as a result, they forcibly handcuffed and Mirandized her.

Thereafter, the police interviewed plaintiff, during which she admitted that she had held a gun to her stomach intending to harm herself; plaintiff later indicated that she was not sure why shethreatened self-harm. Namanny explained to plaintiff that he felt it would be in her best interest to speak with a mental health specialist at SCMC. Plaintiff expressed a willingness to go to the hospital. As such, Namanny and Macdonnell brought plaintiff to the emergency department ("ED") of SCMC, a private, non-profit hospital, pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.228.

Upon admittance to the ED, and while waiting to be evaluated in a private room, plaintiff remained calm and compliant; however, when plaintiff was contacted by Timms, a licensed clinical social worker, she became combative and started yelling loudly, using vulgar profanity, because her handcuffs had not yet been removed. Plaintiff's uncooperative and aggressive behavior continued despite SCMC employees' calming efforts. Eventually, plaintiff was subdued, after which her handcuffs were removed, and was examined by Palmer and interviewed by Timms. Palmer, an ED physician, is not an employee of SCMC; rather, he is a member of COEP, a private company that contracts with SCMC to provide emergency services.

During her interview with Timms, plaintiff reported that she held a loaded gun to her head earlier that evening and wanted to kill herself. Plaintiff also reported that she drank four glasses of vodka and often harms herself via an overdose of prescription medication. Based on this information, and in conferral with Timms and Dr. Lakovics, the admitting physician, Palmer determined that plaintiff was a potential harm to herself and/or others andinitiated an emergency psychiatric hold in SCMC's psychiatric emergency services ("PES") unit. Plaintiff was subsequently informed that she was going to be held overnight in the PES unit and, as a result, needed to change into scrubs pursuant to hospital policy. Upon receiving this information, plaintiff again began yelling and became combative; she demanded to speak with the on-call ED doctor who evaluated her, refusing to change into scrubs or voluntarily admit herself to the PES unit. Palmer returned and informed plaintiff that it was his and his staffs' opinion that she needed further treatment. Plaintiff then erupted at Palmer and began personally threatening him, at which point Palmer ordered the administration of medication to plaintiff in order to effectuate her transition into the PES unit.

Plaintiff continued to refuse to change into hospital scrubs, even after being informed of SCMC's policy. As such, plaintiff was warned that she would be forcibly held down and changed into scrubs if she failed to comply; plaintiff still did not cooperate and, while screaming, demanded to see a patient advocate and a written copy of the hospital's policies. Plaintiff was then physically restrained by Namanny, Macdonnell, and SCMC staff while a female nursing assistant performed a skin-check and replaced plaintiff's existing clothes with hospital scrubs. Throughout this process, plaintiff remained volatile, yelling loudly and personally threatening those around her.

After plaintiff was changed into scrubs, she was transported to the PES unit. During her admission to that unit, and pursuant to Palmer's earlier order, two male SCMC nurses injected plaintiff with a combination of Ativan, Haldol, and Benadryl, which were employed for their anti-anxiety and sedative properties. Plaintiff was then medically monitored via video for the next several hours while she slept. Plaintiff remained in the PES unit until the following morning, January 14, 2010, when she was discharged into her husband's care after a psychiatric evaluation revealed that she was no longer a threat to herself or others.

On December 9, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court. Since the commencement of this lawsuit, plaintiff has engaged in a campaign of harassment against defendants and their counsel, including but not limited to personal threats via email and online videos that accuse defendants of racism and bigotry. On April 16, 2012, plaintiff moved to file an amended complaint; on May 16, 2012, plaintiff moved to file a second amended complaint. On June 26, 2012, this Court granted plaintiff's motions. Accordingly, on July 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On September 21, 2012, after receiving leave from the Court, plaintiff filed her third amended complaint ("TAC"), alleging: (1) several negligence and negligent, reckless, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims ("NIED," "RIED," and "IIED," respectively) under Oregon law; and (2)deprivations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the [moving party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) . Substantive law on an issue determines the materiality of a fact. T.W. Elec. Servs., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Whether the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party determines the authenticity of a dispute. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts which show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.

Special rules of construction apply when evaluating a summary judgment motion: (1) all reasonable doubts as to the existence of genuine issues of material fact should be resolved against the moving party; and (2) all inferences to be drawn from theunderlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. T.W. Elec., 809 F.2d at 630.

DISCUSSION

This dispute centers on whether defendants' physical restraint and administration of certain medications was negligent or in violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights.

I. SCMC's Policy Terms

Central to plaintiff's state and federal claims are several of SCMC's policies and procedures. The first SCMC policy at issue, entitled "Mental Health-Protocol for Involuntary Admission of a Mentally Ill Patient," mandates that the "[p]atient will always be escorted to the Mental Health area by two staff members or a staff member and Police Officer." Supplemental Ex. F to Pl.'s Second Mot. Partial Summ. J. ("Disrobing Policy") at 2. Further, "[a]ll personal belongings are to be removed in [the ED and the patient must be checked] for medications and sharp objects." Id. The patient is also "to be placed in hospital clothes in [the ED]." Id. If a patient is determined to be out of control or a threat to herself or others, the Disrobing Policy requires the "nurse . . . to take immediate protective action [including asking] the Police Officer to assist as long as necessary [and using] locked door, medication, or restraints, as per ‘Restraint and Seclusion' W10027." Id.

The "Restraint and Seclusion" policy, in turn, authorizes the"direct application of physical force to an individual, without the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT