Green v. Obsu
| Docket Number | Civil Action ELH-19-2068 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 2022 |
| Parties | DARRON K. GREEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MULETA T. OBSU, M.D., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This case arises from alleged inadequate medical treatment provided to plaintiff Darron K. Green, while he was a prisoner in the Central Maryland Correctional Facility (“CMCF”). ECF 17 (the “Amended Complaint”); ECF 28 (the “Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC”). Through counsel Green and his wife, Lolita Munir, have sued defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”) and three physicians employed by Wexford: Muleta T. Obsu, M.D. Bolaji Onabajo, M.D.; and Syed Rizvi, M.D. ECF 28 ¶¶ 1-6.
Defendants have filed a post-discovery motion for summary judgment. ECF 56. The motion is supported by a memorandum (ECF 56-1) (collectively, the “Motion”) and several exhibits. ECF 56-2 to ECF 56-10. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion (ECF 59, the “Opposition”), together with exhibits. ECF 59-1 to ECF 59-3. Defendants have replied (ECF 60, the “Reply”), and submitted two additional exhibits. ECF 60-1; ECF 60-2.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion.
Suit was filed by Green and Munir, through counsel, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on August 17, 2018. ECF 3 (“Complaint”). The case was then transferred to the Circuit Court for Howard County. ECF 1-13. While in State court, the parties conducted discovery. See ECF 1-10; ECF 1-18; ECF 1-25; ECF 1-26; ECF 1-27. Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on June 27, 2019, adding a count under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF 17. Thereafter, on July 15, 2019, Wexford removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. ECF 1 (“Notice of Removal”); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441.
After removal, Wexford moved to dismiss or strike certain counts in the Amended Complaint. ECF 21. By Memorandum Opinion (ECF 26) and Order (ECF 27) of February 13, 2020, I granted the motion to dismiss, but also granted leave to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed the SAC. ECF 28.
The SAC contains six counts. Counts I, II, and III assert negligence claims against Dr. Obsu, Dr. Onabajo, and Dr. Rizvi, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 74-85. Count IV lodges a claim against Wexford for “Respondeat Superior,” premised on the negligence allegations in Counts I, II, and III. Id. ¶¶ 86-87. Count V asserts a claim against all defendants for loss of consortium. Id. ¶¶ 8889. Finally, Count VI, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all defendants, alleges deliberate indifference to Green's medical needs, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Id. ¶¶ 90-100. Initially, the count included a claim against Wexford under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). However, with Wexford's consent, plaintiffs dismissed Wexford from Count VI, thereby withdrawing their Monell claim. See ECF 46; ECF 47. Thus, Count VI is now pending only against Dr. Obsu, Dr. Onabajo, and Dr. Rizvi.
The individual defendants answered the SAC. ECF 30. But, Wexford again moved to dismiss Count VI of the SAC. ECF 29. By Memorandum Opinion (ECF 35) and Order (ECF 36) of January 19, 2021, the Court denied the motion. Thereafter, Wexford answered the SAC (ECF 37), and the parties engaged in discovery. See ECF 42; ECF 53. As noted, plaintiffs subsequently withdrew Count VI as to Wexford.
Following a plea of guilty in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to vehicular manslaughter, Green was sentenced on October 21, 2013, to ten years of imprisonment, with all but four years suspended. ECF 56-3 (“State's Version of Offense”) at 1; ECF 56-5 (“Commitment Record”) at 1.[2] According to the State's Version of Offense, on February 20, 2010, Green was driving a Ford F-150 pickup truck in Baltimore when he crossed the median and collided with a vehicle going in the opposite direction, in a “near head on collision.” ECF 56-3 at 1. Green, as well as the driver and passenger of the other vehicle, sustained serious injuries and were taken to the hospital. Id. The driver of the other vehicle died four days later. Id. While at the hospital, blood was drawn from Green, and it was determined that his blood alcohol content was 0.18. Id.
As described by Green during his deposition, his left leg was “[c]rushed;” his femur was exposed; his jaw and right rib were broken; his lungs collapsed; his forehead was “[s]plit” between his eyes; and his lip was also “split.” ECF 56-1 (Green Depo.) at 2 (Tr. at 16). In the immediate aftermath of the accident, Green spent “[p]robably over 30 days,” by his estimation, at the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center, where he underwent 16 surgeries. Id. at 3-4 (Tr. at 17-18). Following these surgeries, Green experienced chronic plain. Id. at 4-5 (Tr. at 18-19). In order to help manage the pain, a nerve stimulator was implanted in Green's lower back and left leg in 2013, requiring three or four surgeries at Mercy Medical Center. Id.; ECF 56-6 (“Office of Inmate Health Services” medical records for Green) at 19.[3]
The medical issues that are the subject of this suit occurred in 2015, while Green was incarcerated at CMCF.[4] Green testified that he began noticing bruising and thinning of the skin on his left leg in March or April of 2015. ECF 59-2 (Green Depo.) at 3 (Tr. at 38-40). He testified that around this time, he felt a warm sensation inside his left leg, and began developing pain and fevers. Id. at 3 (Tr. at 39-40), 6 (Tr. at 51-52). According to Green, he reported these symptoms to prison nurses, whom he saw twice a day because he was on medication. Id. at 4 (Tr. at 41-42). He identified two nurses: a female nurse named “Ms. Chika” and a male nurse named “Mike.” Id. (Tr. at 41-44). Other materials identify “Ms. Chika” as Chika Ezenwachi, R.N (see, e.g., ECF 566 at 7), but I have not ascertained the identity of “Mike” in the materials provided to the Court.
Green testified that “Ms. Chika” was “concerned” and encouraged him to fill out a “sick call” to request medical attention, which he did. ECF 59-2 (Tr. at 42); see id. at 4-5 (Tr. at 43-46). Green's first documented medical visit related to this issue occurred on July 22, 2015, when he saw Dr. Rizvi. ECF 56-6 at 1-2.[5] According to the medical records for the visit, Green told Dr. Rizvi that there had recently been “5-6 days of pain and swelling at posterior tebial site of lead incertion [sic].” Id. at 1. Green also indicated that he was “concerned that [the stimulator] may have been dislodged.” Id. Dr. Rizvi wrote, id.: “Need urgent eval.” However, Dr. Rizvi noted, id.: “NO clinical signs of infection.” (Capital letters in original.) But, at his deposition, Green maintained that his wound was infected, “[b]ad.” ECF 59-2 at 7 (Tr. at 54).
Dr. Rizvi requested a neurosurgery consultation to evaluate the “[p]ossible dislodgement of peripheral lead.” ECF 56-6 at 1; see also id. at 27. This request was conveyed to Asresahegn Getachew, M.D. The Motion describes Dr. Getachew, who is not a defendant, as the “utilization management physician” (ECF 56-1 at 3), and the Opposition does not dispute this characterization. He approved the request via email on July 23, 2015. ECF 56-6 at 55.
The Opposition states: “Dr. Rizvi listed the wrong hospital (Bon Secours instead of Mercy Medical Center) when he submitted his urgent surgical consultation request for approval.” ECF 59 at 6 (citing ECF 56-6 at 57.) The cited medical record reflects that Dr. Rizvi listed Bon Secours as the “Factility/Prov” in his consultation request. ECF 56-6 at 57. The Opposition does not offer any additional explanation as to why this was the “wrong hospital,” but other medical records indicate that Charles Park, M.D., who ultimately performed the consultation, worked at Mercy Medical Center. See, e.g., ECF 56-6 at 28. However, no evidence or material has been provided as to what effect, if any, the designation of Bon Secours might have had on subsequent events, and no evidence has been provided indicating that this designation did, in fact, cause any delay.
In any event, it is undisputed that Green was not seen by a neurosurgeon until approximately three months later, on October 30, 2015. Id. at 27-33. But, medical records reflect that on July 24, 2022, soon after plaintiff was seen by Dr. Rizvi, a “CT [scan] of [Green's] lower leg” was approved by Dr. Getachew. Id. at 56. Dr. Getachew noted that Green had a “possible dislodgement of peripheral lead (neurostimulator).” Id. And, on August 3, 2015, Dr. Obsu generated a consult request for Green's CT scan, which Dr. Getachew had already approved. Id. at 3-4.
According to the Motion, Dr. Getachew ordered the CT scan because he “decided that a CT study of Green's left leg should be done before the neurosurgery consult to determine the status of the peripheral nerve stimulator and whether it had become dislodged.” ECF 56-1 at 3 (citing ECF 56-6 at 55-57). However, the cited records do not explicitly indicate that this was the reason for approval of a CT scan. Rather, they indicate only that Dr. Getachew approved it. The Opposition does not appear to dispute that this was the reason why Dr. Getachew ordered the CT scan. Instead, plaintiffs emphasize the three-month gap between July 22, 2015, and October 30, 2015, and argue, inter alia, that the delay was improper. See ECF 59 at 3, 6-8.
Over the next several months, Green had a series of encounters with health care providers, including the individual defendants. On August 17, 2015, Green was seen by Dr. Obsu. ECF 566 at 5-6. Dr. Obsu noted a draining...
To continue reading
Request your trial