Langston v. Milton S. Hershey Med. Ctr., CIVIL NO. 1:15-CV-02027
| Decision Date | 11 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 1:15-CV-02027 |
| Parties | KATHLEEN LANGSTON, Plaintiff v. MILTON S. HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
In this civil action, proceeding via an amended complaint (Doc. 19), Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, files suit against the following Defendants: (1) Milton S. Hershey Medical Center ("HMC"), a hospital "affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania;" (2) Evangelos Messaris ("Messaris"), a Surgeon employed by HMC; (3) Walter Kothul ("Kothul"), the Chief of Colorectal Surgery at HMC; (4) Mount Nittany Medical Center ("Mt. Nittany"), a hospital organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, located in State College, PA; and (5) Madhavi Singh ("Singh"), a Physician employed by Mt. Nittany.1 (Doc. 19 at ¶¶ 6-10). Plaintiff's claims arise under federal and state laws.
In particular, Plaintiff claims that: (1) HMC, Messaris, and Kothul deprived her of due process, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) Hershey and Mt. Nittany violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"); (3) Hershey and Mt. Nittany failed to stabilize an emergency medical condition before transferring her to outside medical facilities, in violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ("EMTALA"); (4) Messaris, HMC, Singh, and Mt. Nittany areliable for professional negligence, under state law; and (5) HMC, Messaris, and Kothul committed a "battery," in violation of state law, for not obtaining her informed consent to undergo a medical procedure. (Doc. 19 at pp. 8-9). For remedies, Plaintiff expressly seeks damages against all five defendants, in excess of $75,000; punitive damages against Messaris and Singh; injunctive relief against Mt. Nittany, requiring it to modify its practices to accommodate patients with disabilities; and attorney's fees and costs. (Id. at ¶ 3 & p.10).
Pending before the Court are two motions (Docs. 24 & 26) to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The first dismissal motion was filed by HMC, Messaris, and Singh. The second motion was filed by Mt. Nittany. Both motions are ripe for review. (See Docs. 25, 27, & 29).2
Seldomridge v. Penn State Hershey Medical Center, No. 13- 2897, 2014 WL 2619371, at *3 (M.D. Pa. June 12, 2014)(Caldwell, J.). With this standard in mind, we turn to Plaintiff's allegations in the amended complaint.
Plaintiff has Crohn's Disease and Diabetes. (Doc. 19 at ¶ 11). As a result of a perianal fistula that originated in 1997, Plaintiff lost nearly two feet from the small intestine. (Id. at ¶ 12). Plaintiff has also experienced chronic diarrhea and incontinence, and she has had difficulty working, eating, and digesting food. (See id. at ¶¶ 12, 13).
On October 14, 2013, Messaris, under Kothul's supervision, "perform[ed] an ileostomy on Plaintiff."3 (Id. at ¶ 14). Beforehand, Messaris informed Plaintiff that "she might have a temporary ostomy rather than a health threatening high-output ileostomy." (Id. at ¶ 15). Plaintiff, however, ended up with a "very high output ileostomy." (Id. at ¶ 18).
According to Plaintiff, for patients with Crohn's Disease undergoing a perianal repair, there is a "failure rate" between 50 - 80%. (Id. at ¶ 16). Had Plaintiff been informed of said "failure rate," and "properly" informed her of the risks, benefits, and alternatives, she would not have given consent. (Id. at ¶ 17).
Following the medical procedure, in addition to having a high-output ileostomy, Messaris did not monitor Plaintiff's ostomy output. (Id. at ¶ 19). Also, on October 17, 2013, Plaintiff, who remained at HMC, experienced leg cramps, and Messaris instructed that she drink a quart of Gatorade. (Id. at ¶ 26). Confusingly, Plaintiff alleges that despite Messaris' instructions, and the fact that she was already at a hospital, a medical resident later told her that she should present herself to a local hospital "to be hydrated." (See id. at ¶ 27). The following day, on October 18, 2013, Plaintiff still felt "ill." (See id. at ¶ 20). Messaris, though, under Kothul's supervision, discharged her from HMC. (Id.). After Plaintiff was discharged, she took a 90-mile cab ride "to an empty house." (Id.).
Approximately 30 hours later, on or about October 20, 2013, Plaintiff drove herself to Mt. Nittany's Emergency Department. (See id. at ¶ 21). At Mt. Nittany, Singh did not "adequate[ly]" hydrate Plaintiff, and informed her that, as a patient with Crohn's Disease, she should not have had any Gatorade. (Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26). Singh also did not consult with Plaintiff's family physician or gastroenterologist. (Id.).
On the same date she presented to Mt. Nittany, Plaintiff was due to be discharged. As she was being discharged, however, Plaintiff experienced renal failure, resulting in her transfer to HMC. (Id. at ¶¶ 23-24). After her arrival there, "[HMC] . . . attempted to discharge Plaintiff [back] to her empty house." (Id. at ¶ 25). Plaintiff, though, called her son to advocate for her, and arranged for her admission to a nursing home, for two weeks. (Id.).
Afterwards, between October 21-23, 2013, because Plaintiff was experiencing pain, she was unable to have an ostomy bag attached and remain in place. (Id. at ¶ 28). On October 21, in particular, Plaintiff "was transported" from a nursing home toMt. Nittany's Emergency Department, where she was treated while nurses attempted to fit "new appliances" to her abdomen. (Id. at ¶¶ 29-30). "[O]ne doctor" told Plaintiff that she was not sick and should go home. (Id. at ¶ 31). Nonetheless, Plaintiff would remain at Mt. Nittany. (Id.).
Two days later, on October 23, 2013, Plaintiff passed out while walking to the bathroom. (Id. at ¶ 36). Plaintiff attributes this to dehydration, which intensified "during the multiple ostomy appliance applications," and caused her to develop severe leg, arm, and back spasms. (Id. at ¶ 33, 36). That same day, a nurse saw Plaintiff's arm in spasm, and spoke to Singh. Singh ordered lab tests. The lab tests showed that Plaintiff's renal functions were nine times higher than normal. (Id. at ¶ 37). As a result, CAT Scans were ordered for Plaintiff's abdomen and kidneys, and Singh acknowledged that Plaintiff might be experiencing renal failure. (Id. at ¶ 38). In addition, Plaintiff had difficulty sleeping that night because she had developed severe "acid vice-like" rib pain. (Id. at ¶ 29).
The next day, on October 24, 2013, Plaintiff claims that Singh did not give her IVs or provide her with electrolytes. (See id. at ¶¶ 32-34). In Singh's view, although Plaintiff's creatinine level was at 4, lab tests showed that her magnesium and potassium levels were normal. (Id. at ¶¶ 34, 40). Thus, Singh told Plaintiff to go home. (See id. at ¶ 32). Plaintiff, however, would remain at Mt. Nittany.
On October 26, 2013, while still at Mt. Nittany, the seals on Plaintiff's ostomy bag twice failed, resulting in "terrible" pain. (Id. at ¶ 41). Plaintiff asked to speak to Singh about pain management, but when they met, the topic was not discussed. (Id.). Plaintiff continued to experience pain, and she was not allowed out of bed without a staff member present. (Id. at ¶ 42). Because of the bed restriction, Plaintiff was left "in a pool of bile" untilstaff could come to assist her. (Id.). That afternoon, Plaintiff then developed "vice-like" rib pain, and endured three, painful "appliance seal failures." (Id. at ¶ 43).
One day later, on October 27, 2013, a nurse "implored" Singh to help Plaintiff with the overall pain she was experiencing. (See id. at ¶¶ 44). HMC, though, had been informed of Plaintiff's condition and reserved a bed for her there. (Id. at ¶ 45). Plaintiff was then transferred to HMC in an ambulance. (Id.).
At some point after her arrival at HMC, on October 27th, "personnel" informed Plaintiff that she was "medically ready" for discharge and could be discharged to a non-skilled rehabilitation facility. (Id. at ¶ 46). Plaintiff was informed of this despite experiencing painful leg cramps. (See id. at ¶ 47). Moreover, after being informed of her eventual discharge, Plaintiff was unable to locate a...
To continue reading
Request your trial