Kindoll v. S. Health Partners

• Decision Date: 28 March 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-84-DLB-CJS
• Parties: MICHELLE KINDOLL PLAINTIFF v. SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, et al. DEFENDANTS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky

MICHELLE KINDOLL PLAINTIFF
v.
SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, et al. DEFENDANTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-84-DLB-CJS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON

March 28, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff Michelle Kindoll was arrested for possession of heroin and transported to the Grant County Detention Center ("GCDC"). During her time at the GCDC, Plaintiff suffered a stroke, which she alleges resulted in permanent speech and mobility impairments.

On May 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed suit against two groups of Defendants: (1) the "County Defendants," comprised of Grant County, and (in both their individual and official capacities) Corporal Audra Napier, Deputy Tammy Bullock, Jailer Christopher Hankins, and John and Jane Doe; and (2) the "SHP Defendants," comprised of former GCDC medical services contractor Southern Health Partners, Inc. (SHP), and its employees, nurses David Watkins, RN, Debbie Preston, LPN, and David Ross, LPN.¹ (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth four counts—one constitutional claim and three state-law claims. Count One asserts a claim against all Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count Two asserts a medical malpractice action against Defendants Preston, Ross, and

Page 2

Watkins under Kentucky law. Count Three asserts a negligence claim against SHP under Kentucky law. Finally, Count Four asserts a negligence claim against Defendants Napier, Bullock, and John and Jane Doe under Kentucky law.

There are currently two Motions for Summary Judgment before the Court (Docs. # 62 and 83), wherein both groups of Defendants seek summary judgment on all claims. The SHP Defendants have also filed a Motion to Strike (Doc. # 79), which the Court will take up along with these dispositive motions. All three motions are fully briefed and ripe for review. (Docs. # 73, 77, 78, 79, 80, 86, 92, 98 and 99). For the reasons set forth below, the County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 62) is denied in part and granted in part; the SHP Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. # 79) is denied; and the SHP Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 83) is denied in part and granted in part.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff Michelle Kindoll was arrested for possession of heroin. (Doc. # 73-6 at 20-21). Plaintiff's adult daughter, Felicia, was arrested as well, and the two women were ultimately transported to the GCDC for pretrial detention. (Docs. # 73-9 at 8, 24, 36-37, 121 and 73-6 at 10-14). During the GCDC intake process, Kindoll advised the staff that she would be experiencing withdrawal from heroin. (Docs. # 73-9 at 162 and 73-7 at 24-25).

Plaintiff was then placed alone in an isolation cell to undergo withdrawal. (Docs. # 73-9 at 37-38 and 73-7 at 25). At the GCDC, isolation cells were used primarily for punishment purposes. (Docs. # 73-5 at 36 and 73-7 at 63). However, as the female "x-block" at the GCDC did not have medical-watch cells, jailers used these isolation cells at

Page 3

times for "medical watch" purposes such as keeping a closer eye on inmates undergoing drug withdrawal. Id. Inmates placed in isolation cells for medical watch were monitored more frequently; the jailer on shift was required to look in every ten to fifteen minutes. (Docs. # 73-5 at 49-50; 73-11 at 33 and 73-12 at 50-51). Likewise, medical staff checked vitals and conducted a basic overview once per twelve-hour shift for inmates on medical watch. (Docs. # 73-2 at 30-32 and 73-3 at 102).

On May 9, 2016, Plaintiff's daughter was released on bond. (Doc. # 73-6 at 20-22). That same day, Plaintiff inquired when she would be moved out of the isolation cell into a general-population cell, as she was no longer experiencing withdrawal symptoms. (Doc. # 73-9 at 41, 146). Approximately two days later, on May 11, 2016, Plaintiff was cleared by medical staff to move to a general-population cell. (Docs. # 73-5 at 61 and 73-9 at 41-43).

It appears that Plaintiff did not display any stroke symptoms while she was interned in the isolation cell for heroin withdrawal. (Doc. # 73-3 at 29). However, on approximately May 18, 2016, about two weeks after being detained at the GCDC, Plaintiff began experiencing stroke symptoms. (Docs. # 73-9 at 46 and 73-22 at 2). While housed in the general-population cell, Plaintiff felt weak and experienced obstructed vision; further, Plaintiff passed out in the shower, requiring other inmates to help Plaintiff back to her "boat"—a mat on the floor. (Docs. # 73-9 at 47 and 73-16). Plaintiff, however, did not seek medical treatment after passing out in the shower. She testified that she did not want to be "put . . . back in isolation." (Doc. # 73-9 at 48-49). Further, Plaintiff testified that she experienced difficulty thinking clearly and did not understand that she was

Page 4

experiencing stroke symptoms; rather, she believed she had a "pinched nerve" or was "just . . . withdrawing." Id. at 48-49, 55-56, 61, 153.

As time progressed, however, GCDC staff and the medical team were alerted to Kindoll's symptoms. That same day on May 18, 2016, at approximately 6:15 p.m., after Plaintiff was moved to the general-population cell, she informed the day-shift deputy jailer, Dedi Adams, that she could not feel her leg. (Doc. # 73-5 at 26, 63). Deputy Adams notified Debbie Preston, LPN, in the medical unit that Plaintiff reported that she could not feel her leg. (Doc. # 73-18). Adams's Incident Report notes that LPN Preston said, "OK." Id. However, LPN Preston did not assess Plaintiff at that time. (Docs. # 73-4 at 29-33; 73-5 at 63-64, 68, 72-73, 77 and 73-18).

At the end of her shift, Deputy Adams communicated to the night-shift deputy jailer, Tammy Bullock, that Plaintiff said she could not feel her leg and to keep an eye on her. (Docs. # 73-5 at 64 and 73-11 at 20-21). Deputy Bullock's overnight shift lasted from 6:45 p.m. on May 18, 2016, to 7:15 a.m. on May 19, 2016. (Doc. # 73-11 at 15-18, 21, 25). During her shift, Bullock was alerted by other inmates that Plaintiff complained of "not full body movement." Id. Bullock observed that Plaintiff was dragging her right leg and that Plaintiff complained of not being able to use or move her leg and having trouble seeing. (Docs. # 73-9 at 163; 73-11 at 19-21, 27-32, 36-38 and 73-16). Deputy Bullock also noted that the symptoms were irregular; at times during the night of May 18, 2016, the symptoms moved to Plaintiff's left leg; at other times, both legs were normal. Id. Additionally, Bullock observed that other inmates in the general-population cell were helping Plaintiff stand up, sit down, and walk to the bathroom. (Docs. # 73-11 at 21 and 73-16). Deputy Bullock notified medical staff and informed the on-duty nurse, David Ross, LPN, that Plaintiff had

Page 5

been limping and complained that she could not feel her foot. (Docs. # 73-2 at 76-77, 126-128, 152-153 and 73-11 at 15-17, 25).

LPN Ross conducted an evaluation of Plaintiff and found her vital signs to be normal. Ross performed and improperly interpreted a "Babinski test" to look for neurological issues. Ross misinterpreted a positive indication as a negative, and failed to recognize a sign of any other health conditions. (Docs. # 73-2 at 68-77; 73-9 at 63; 73-16 and 73-10 at 52-54, 80-81, 83). Noting that Plaintiff had indicated on her intake form that she had back problems, Ross concluded that the numbness in Plaintiff's leg was merely sciatica and he chose not to reach out to his supervisor, Medical Team Administrator David Watkins, RN, or to the on-call physician. (Doc. # 73-2 at 72, 79, 86-87).

LPN Ross testified that inmates who had more acute needs at the GCDC were not treated significantly different than patients who were on long-term medications or received chronic care. If he perceived that an inmate had a serious medical condition, Ross testified that he would not reach out to a physician immediately but would "[s]tart out by calling [Medical Team Administrator, Nurse David Watkins], asking him what he thinks. And then he would typically say, go ahead and call a doctor, or, I'll observe." Id. at 48-50. On the day he assessed Plaintiff, Ross did not reach out to the Medical Team Administrator, David Watkins, nor did he contact the physician on call; rather, he put a note in the binder for the physician to review when he made his periodic visit the following week.² (Docs. # 73-2 at 72, 78-79 and 73-3 at 14).

Page 6

Shawnee Thoman, the regional representative for SHP—the corporation contracted by Grant County to ensure treatment guidelines were being adhered to—testified that it was the role of the physician to decide a patient's care. (Doc. # 73-10 at 12, 38-39). However, Thoman testified that she was not aware of the physician contracted to provide services at GCDC, Dr. Elton Amos, having any role in supervising the nursing staff other than phone calls to him by the nursing staff should they wish to discuss a patient's treatment. Id. at 37-38.

After his evaluation and diagnosis of Plaintiff's condition, LPN Ross and Deputy Bullock decided to move Plaintiff back to an isolation cell to prevent inmates from hurting themselves or Plaintiff, as the other inmates were seen lifting and pulling on Plaintiff while helping her to and from the bathroom. (Docs. # 73-2 at 76-77; 73-9 at 63; 73-11 at 27-32 and 73-16). LPN Ross instructed Deputy Bullock to keep an eye on Plaintiff and to call the medical unit if there were any changes. (Doc. # 73-2 at 76-77). Plaintiff was placed into the isolation cell on May 18, 2016; however, there is no evidence that Deputy Bullock placed Plaintiff on medical watch. (Doc. # 73-7 at 56). The record indicates that Plaintiff, though in isolation, was not placed on medical watch until 10:50 p.m. on May 20, 2016. Id. On May 19, 2016, at the end of his shift, LPN Ross assessed Plaintiff again. He observed Plaintiff limp while walking, but concluded...