Haughie v. Wexford Health Sources
| Decision Date | 09 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-18-3963 |
| Parties | ROBERT HAUGHIE, Plaintiff, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff Robert Haugie, a Maryland prisoner, filed a civil rights suit, through counsel, under 42 U.S.C § 1983, alleging constitutionally inadequate medical care with respect to diagnosis of a brain tumor. ECF 1 (the "Complaint"). He has sued multiple defendants, known and unknown. They include Wexford Health Sources, Inc. ("Wexford"); Q. Mallory, R.N.; Charles Williams III; Mary Rockefeller, N.P.; Michael Smith; Marian Peters, R.N.; Newman Azubuike; Electa Awanga;1 Melaku Ayalew, M.D.; Yonas Sisay, M.D.; Hiruy Bishaw, M.D.; P.A. Emmanuel; and Doe Defendants 1-10.2
The Complaint contains six causes of action, which I shall denominate as counts. Count I, alleging "Deprivation of Eighth Amendment Right to Medical Care," is lodged against all defendants. Id. ¶¶ 58-76. Count II, against Wexford, alleges "Policy & Practice of Denial ofMedical Care." Id. ¶¶ 77-91. Count III, filed against all defendants, asserts violations of Articles 24 and 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Id. ¶¶ 92-96. Count IV asserts a claim against all defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. ¶¶ 97-103. Count V is styled as "Respondeat Superior" and is lodged against Wexford. Id. ¶¶ 104-106. And, Count VI seeks "Indemnification" as to Wexford. Id. ¶¶ 107-110.
The docket reflects that defendants Williams and Emmanuel were served. ECF 4. But, they have not responded to the suit.
Four motions are pending. Mallory, Awanga, Smith, Ayalew, Sisay, Peters, Bishaw, Azubuike, and Rockefeller (collectively, the "Individual Medical Defendants") have moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF 17), supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 17-1) (the "Motion to Dismiss"). Wexford, which has answered the suit (ECF 5), has moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) (ECF 20), supported by a memorandum (ECF 20-1) (the "Wexford Motion"). Defendants have also moved to bifurcate the pattern and practice or "Monell" claim in Count II, and to stay Monell discovery. ECF 21. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). It is supported by a memorandum (ECF 21-1) (the "Motion to Bifurcate"). Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Dismiss (ECF 26), the Wexford Motion (ECF 22), and the Motion to Bifurcate. ECF 25. Defendants have filed replies as to the Motion to Bifurcate (ECF 27); the Wexford Motion (ECF 28); and the Motion to Dismiss. ECF 29.
Plaintiff has moved to amend the Complaint (ECF 30-1, the "Motion to Amend").3 Defendants oppose the Motion to Amend. ECF 32. Plaintiff has replied in. ECF 34.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion to Amend. I shall deny the Wexford Motion as premature. I shall deny as moot the Motion to Dismiss, because that motion is directed to the original Complaint, which is superseded by the amended Complaint. And, I shall grant the Motion to Bifurcate.
Haugie is a Maryland prisoner incarcerated at "JCI." ECF 1, ¶ 10. He alleges that on November 11, 2015, he "began to experience painful and debilitating headaches that refused to subside." Id. ¶ 31. These headaches affected his "balance, appetite, speech, alertness, vision, and continence and caused him to become dizzy." Id. ¶ 33.
Haugie's symptoms persisted until December 24, 2015, when he was hospitalized. Id. ¶ 32. At that time, he was diagnosed with a benign brain tumor. Id. ¶ 34. He underwent surgery a few days later, on December 28, 2015, at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Id. ¶ 54.
Wexford, a private company "hired by DPSCS to provide medical services to those who, like Plaintiff, are incarcerated in the Department of Corrections," was responsible for plaintiff's medical care during the relevant time. Id. ¶ 12. In November and December 2015, when Haughie's symptoms first appeared and persisted, he saw several Wexford health care providers.
On November 19, 2015, Haugie was seen by Charles Williams III, an attending nurse. Id. ¶¶ 23, 35. Although plaintiff allegedly reported his persistent headaches, he claims that Williams "failed to accurately report Plaintiff's symptoms on the medical records that would be viewed by other providers responsible for Plaintiff's care." Id. ¶ 35. Haugie alleges that Yonas Sisay, an attending physician at JCI (id. ¶ 18), recorded Haugie's headaches and dizziness "as early as December 2, 2015, but no differential diagnosis was performed nor was any appropriate treatment provided." Id. ¶ 36. The next day, Sisay "continued" Haugie's existing prescriptions for Neurontinand Fioricet. Id. ¶ 37. Smith again observed Haugie on December 5, 2015, but again "failed to record any of Plaintiff's complaints related to his debilitating headaches and dizziness or provide any treatment for Plaintiff's condition whatsoever." Id. ¶ 38.
Haugie saw Mary Rockefeller, an attending nurse practitioner, on December 14, 2015. Id. ¶¶ 26, 39. According to plaintiff, Rockefeller also failed to record his symptoms. Id. ¶ 39. Smith saw Haugie on December 20, 2015, but again did not record his symptoms. Id. ¶ 40. Between December 20 and December 22, Haugie claims he could not eat or walk. Id. ¶ 41. Haugie went to inmate health services on December 22, 2015, where he was seen by Rockefeller. Id. ¶ 42. She "noted that Plaintiff appeared tired, semi-asleep, and was having difficulty talking." Id.
On the same date, Marian Peters, an attending nurse, and Newman Azubuike, also an attending nurse, "observed that Plaintiff appeared very drowsy, had slow quiet speech, and was unsteady walking." Id. ¶¶ 21, 24, 43. They also noted that plaintiff's blood pressure was elevated, he was and unsteady in walking, and had reported vomiting, dizziness, and a headache. Id. ¶ 44.
Haugie maintains his condition was "drastically worse" than what was reported by defendants at the time. Id. ¶ 45. He alleges that at the time, he was "experiencing neurological damage from the growth of a brain tumor which caused extreme headaches, extreme disorientation, loss of motor function in his legs and hands, and extreme pain and suffering." Id.
During this time, a physician's assistant, identified as "P.A. Emmanuel," prescribed Motrin for Haugie. Id. ¶¶ 19, 46. However, no emergency treatment was provided, nor was a doctor called to evaluate plaintiff. Id. ¶ 47.
On December 23, 2015, defendant reported his symptoms to Melaku Ayalew, an attending physician, and Electa Awanga, an attending nurse. Id. ¶¶ 16, 25, 49. Haugie alleges that Ayalew and Awanga "falsely reported that Plaintiff was no longer experiencing headaches ordisorientation, or lack of motor function, and decided Plaintiff did not need to be referred for any further treatment." Id. ¶ 49.
The following day, December 24, 2015, Haugie reported his "unabated" symptoms to Hiruy Bishaw, an attending physician. Id. ¶¶ 17, 50. Haugie alleges that Bishaw "falsely reported that Plaintiff was no longer experiencing headaches, disorientation, or lack of motor function, and decided that Plaintiff did not need to be referred for any further treatement." Id. ¶ 50. Haugie's "pain and distress increased during this time" because he was not receiving appropriate treatment. Id. ¶ 51.
That day, a medical staff member noted that Haugie "was unable to move his left leg, had numbness in his left hand, no normal movement in [his] right hand, and had abdominal pain going through chest to shoulder." Id. At that point, Wexford staff called an ambulance and Haugie was transported to Baltimore Washington Medical Center. Id. ¶ 53. There, Haugie received a CT scan, which revealed the brain tumor. Id. He was subsequently transferred to Johns Hopkins Hospital, where he underwent surgery to remove the brain tumor on December 28, 2015. Id. ¶¶ 53, 54.
Plaintiff claims that his surgery was "complicated by increased intracranial pressure from the undiscovered and undiagnosed brain tumor." Id. ¶ 54. Moreover, he alleges that he "currently suffers from a long term to permanent difficulty swallowing, walking, and talking. Id. ¶ 55.
Haughie filed suit in federal court on December 21, 2018. Also on December 21, 2018, Haugie filed a medical malpractice claim with the Maryland Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office ("HCADRO"). He named the Individual Medical Defendants and Wexford, but not DPSCS. ECF 32-1. And, it was not until July 1, 2019, that he filed with the HCADRO the required Certificate of Qualified Expert and the expert's report. The Certificate is dated December 9, 2018. ECF 32-2. The expert's report, titled "Supplemental Report," is dated January 19, 2019.Id. The Certificate and report are authored by Anthony Chin-Quee, M.D., a board-certified physician in Otolaryngology. Id.
Haugie filed his Motion to Amend on September 25, 2019. ECF 30-1. The proposed amended Complaint (ECF 30) adds a new claim (Count VII) against all defendants for medical malpractice, including the DPSCS. Notably, the DPSCS was previously dismissed from the case. In sum, plaintiff asserts that the standard of care required defendants to have sent Haugie to a specialist upon learning of his symptoms. ECF 30, ¶¶ 112-119.
Additional facts are included, infra.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) provides: "After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings."
Wexford has filed an answer to the Complaint. ECF 5. However, the Individual Medical Defendants have not yet filed answers. Instead, they have moved to dismiss. See ECF 17. Therefore, the Wexford Motion under Rule 12(c) is premature.
Numerous cases indicate that a Rule 12(c) motion is premature if filed before all defendants have answered the suit. See, e.g.
To continue reading
Request your trial