Hickey v. Merritt-Scully
| Decision Date | 24 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil 4:18-cv-01793 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Parties | KATHLEEN HICKEY, As the Administratrix of Estate of Michael A. Serrano, Deceased, and in her Own Right, Plaintiff, v. KAREN MERRITT-SCULLY, MICHAEL MOCLOCK, RENEE KERR. Defendants. |
KATHLEEN HICKEY, As the Administratrix of Estate of Michael A. Serrano, Deceased, and in her Own Right, Plaintiff,
v.
KAREN MERRITT-SCULLY, MICHAEL MOCLOCK, RENEE KERR. Defendants.
Civil No. 4:18-cv-01793
United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
March 24, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Susan E. Schwab, United States Magistrate Judge
I. Introduction.
Plaintiff Kathleen Hickey ("Hickey") brings this action individually and as Administratrix of the estate of her deceased son, Michael A. Serrano ("Serrano"), who passed away on May 29, 2016, while incarcerated at State Correctional Institute Coal Township ("SCI Coal Twp"). Hickey asserts civil rights and professional negligence claims against defendants Michael Moclock, M.D. ("Dr. Moclock"), Health Care Administrator, Karen Merritt-Scully ("Merritt-Scully") and Renee Kerr, LPN ("Nurse Kerr"), and requests damages pursuant to Pennsylvania's Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8301, and Pennsylvania's
Survival Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8302.[1] Presently before us are two motions for summary judgment, one filed by Dr. Moclock, and the other jointly filed by Merritt-Scully and Nurse Kerr. Because complex factual and medical issues permeate this case, we will grant in part and deny in part both motions for summary judgment.
II. Background and Procedural History.
Hickey began this action by filing a praecipe for writ of summons in the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas on May 25, 2018. Doc. 1-1. Hickey initially named as the defendants Thomas McGinley ("McGinley"), Merritt-Scully, Dr. Moclock, Kevin Meitzler, RN ("Meitzler"), Denice Austeel, RN ("Austeel"), Brian Davis, PA-C ("Davis"), and Nurse Kerr. Id. at 3-4. On September 12, 2018, Dr. Moclock and Davis filed a notice of removal, and this action was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Doc. 1. Dr. Moclock filed a motion to dismiss Hickey's complaint, and all defendants filed an answer to the complaint on November 19, 2018. Docs.
4, 13. Judge Brann granted Dr. Moclock's motion to dismiss, and Hickey filed the operative amended complaint on December 21, 2018, which names as the defendants Dr. Moclock, Merritt-Scully, and Nurse Kerr. Docs. 15, 16. Hickey alleges that the defendants violated Serrano's constitutional rights through their deliberate indifference to his medical conditions, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Hickey also alleges that the defendants are liable for professional negligence which resulted in Serrano's death. Doc. 16 at 26-30, 38-56.
By way of background, Hickey alleges in her amended complaint that Serrano was shot in the face and head in 2008, which caused a traumatic brain injury and multiple health issues including seizures. Id. at 21. She alleges that Serrano was sentenced to prison on November 7, 2011, was transferred along with his medical records through multiple different prisons, and was ultimately incarcerated at SCI Coal Twp. on November 23, 2015. Id. at 22-28.
Counts One, Two and Three of the amended compliant assert state law professional negligence/medical malpractice ("professional negligence") claims against Dr. Moclock, Merritt-Scully, and Nurse Kerr respectively. Counts Four and Five assert claims against Dr. Moclock and Merritt-Scully respectively under
§ 1983 for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and failure to train, supervise and discipline claims. Count six asserts an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Nurse Kerr.
The defendants filed their answers to the amended complaint. Docs. 19-20. Hickey filed a notice of voluntary dismissal for, and the court ordered the dismissal of, defendants McGinley, Meitzler, Austeel, and Davis. Docs. 21-22. The remaining parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c), and the case was referred to the undersigned. Docs. 26, 28.
On May 21, 2020, the parties filed three motions for summary judgment. Docs. 43 (Dr. Moclock), 45 (Nurse Kerr and Merritt-Scully), 46 (Hickey). The three defendants filed a joint statement of material facts along with exhibits in support of their motions for summary judgment. Doc. 44. Hickey filed a brief in support of her motion for summary judgment containing her statement of material facts, along with exhibits.[2] Doc. 49. Hickey later filed a supplemental appendix of exhibits. Doc. 62. Dr. Moclock filed a brief in support of his motion for summary judgment, as did Merritt-Scully and Nurse Kerr. Docs. 51, 53. Dr. Moclock also
filed a brief in opposition to Hickey's motion for summary judgment, as did Merritt-Scully and Nurse Kerr. Docs. 58, 59. The three defendants filed a joint response to the statement of material facts contained in Hickey's brief in support of her motion for summary judgment. Doc. 60. Hickey filed briefs in opposition[3] to Merritt-Scully and Nurse Kerr's motion for summary judgment and to Dr. Moclock's motion for summary judgment. Docs. 63-64. Dr. Moclock filed a reply brief in support of his motion for summary judgment, and Merritt-Scully and Nurse Kerr filed a reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment. Docs. 65-66. Hickey did not file any reply briefs, and the time to do so has since passed.
On March 12, 2021, we entered an order denying Hickey's motion for summary judgment on the basis that she failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1, and we further ordered her to file an appropriate response to the defendants' joint statement of material facts in accordance with Local Rule 56.1. Doc. 67. Hickey filed her response to the defendants' joint statement of material facts. Doc. 68. Thus, the defendants' two motions for summary judgment are ripe for decision. We separately analyze each motion for summary judgment below.
III. Summary Judgment Standards.
The defendants move for summary judgment under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "Through summary adjudication the court may dispose of those claims that do not present a 'genuine dispute as to any material fact' and for which a jury trial would be an empty and unnecessary formality." Goudy-Bachman v. U.S. Dep 't of Health & Human Servs., 811 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1091 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)).
The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). With respect to an issue on which the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof, the moving party may discharge that burden by "'showing'-that is, pointing out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at 325.
Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleading; rather, the nonmoving party must show a genuine dispute by "citing to particular parts of materials in the
record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials" or "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence ... of a genuine dispute." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). If the nonmoving party "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden at trial," summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
Summary judgment is also appropriate if the nonmoving party provides merely colorable, conclusory, or speculative evidence. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). There must be more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the nonmoving party and more than some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Id. at 252. "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial.'"Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
The substantive law identifies which facts are material, and "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute about a material fact is genuine only if there is enough evidence to allow a
reasonable factfinder to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 248-49. When "faced with a summary judgment motion, the court must view the facts 'in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.'" N.A.A.C.P. v. N. Hudson Reg'l Fire & Rescue, 665 F.3d 464, 475 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)).
At the summary judgment stage, the judge's function is not to weigh the evidence or to determine the truth of the matter; rather it is to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. The proper inquiry of the court "is the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is the need for a trial-whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Id. at 250.
Summary judgment is warranted, after adequate time for discovery, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322....
To continue reading
Request your trial