Mace v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 10 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil File No. 11-0477 (MJD/LIB) |
| Parties | SHAWN MACE, Plaintiff, v. NORMAN JOHNSON, M.D., SCOTT D. HABLE, RENVILLE COUNTY, and 3 UNNAMED RENVILLE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
Daniel E. Gustafson, Amanda M. Williams, Joseph C. Bourne, and Lucy G. Massopust, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Counsel for Plaintiff.
Stephen O. Plunkett and Jonathan P. Norrie, Bassford Remele, Counsel for Defendant Norman Johnson.
Jason M. Hiveley and Andrea B. Wing, Iverson Reuvers Condon, Counsel for Defendants Renville County, Scott Hable, and 3 Unnamed Renville County Correctional Officers.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Scott D. Hable's, Renville County's, and 3 Unnamed Renville County Correction Officers' Motion forSummary Judgment [Docket No. 75]; Defendant Norman Johnson, M.D.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 92]; Plaintiff Shawn Mace's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant Norman Johnson, M.D. [Docket No. 98]; Plaintiff Shawn Mace's Motion to Exclude Report and Testimony of Expert Mobin Ahmed Malik, M.D., M.S. [Docket No. 102]; and Plaintiff Shawn Mace's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants Scott D. Hable, Renville County, and 3 Unnamed Renville County Correctional Officers [Docket No. 107]. The Court heard oral argument on October 8, 2013.
Because Mobin Ahmed Malik's report would be useful to a jury but aspects of it would be unfairly prejudicial, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff Shawn Mace's Motion to Exclude Report and Testimony of Expert Mobin Ahmed Malik, M.D., M.S. and orders that that the phrase "deliberate indifference" be stricken from Dr. Malik's testimony. Because there are genuine issues of material fact surrounding Defendant Norman Johnson's conduct, the Court denies both Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant Norman Johnson, M.D. and Defendant Norman Johnson, M.D.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. Because qualified immunity applies and because Plaintiff has made an inadequate showing of how County policies were the moving forcebehind any individual liability, the Court grants Defendants Scott D. Hable's, Renville County's, and 3 Unnamed Renville County Correction Officers' Motion for Summary Judgment and denies Plaintiff Shawn Mace's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants Scott D. Hable, Renville County, and 3 Unnamed Renville County Correctional Officers.
In 1992, Plaintiff Shawn Mace was involved in an automobile accident that led to a spinal-fusion procedure. (Bourne Aff., Docket No. 101, Ex. E, at 4; Ex. K, at MACE-000173; Ex. I, at MACE-000100.) The procedure caused Plaintiff to have chronic back pain. (Ex. K, at MACE-000173.) For this pain, Plaintiff was prescribed several medications, including OxyContin and Oxycodone. (Ex. K, at MACE-000173; see Ex. E, at 4-5; Bourne Aff., Docket No. 101, Ex. L, at MACE-000178.)
In 2008, Plaintiff was arrested for selling marijuana, and in February 2009, he was incarcerated in Redwood County Jail ("Redwood"). ( He remained at Redwood for approximately 12 days. (Mace Dep. 73:23-25.) Because of overcrowding at Redwood, however, Plaintiff was transferred to Renville County Jail ("Jail"). Defendant Scott D. Hable serves as Sheriff of Renville County. (
Plaintiff arrived at the Jail on March 2, 2009. (Ex. N, at RENVILLE 0001.) During Plaintiff's transfer, a deputy was given Plaintiff's medications at Redwood, and the deputy delivered the medications to the Jail along with Plaintiff. (Mace Dep. 74:9-13.) These medications included Gabapentin, Oxycodone, and OxyContin. (Bourne Aff., Docket No. 101, Ex. O, at RENVILLE 0002.) Gabapentin is a drug used to treat seizures, but it is also used to treat pain. (Smith Aff., Docket No. 78, Ex. E, N. Johnson Dep. 23:11-20.) Oxycodone and OxyContin are both opiates used to treat pain. (N. Johnson Dep. 24:24-25:18.)
Defendant Renville County (the "County") has contracted with Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc. ("ACH") to provide medical care for its inmates at the Jail. (See N. Johnson Dep., Ex. 6, ACH Contract 1-5.) ACH specializes in correctional medical care and treats detainees at 230 jails. (N. Johnson Dep.110:20-111:1.) ACH is responsible for inmate medical care, and its doctors make decisions about prescriptions. (See Smith Aff., Docket No. 78, Ex. C, Musich Dep. 24:14-20; ACH Contract 1-2.)
The County pays ACH a fixed monthly fee for their services, and the fee is adjusted quarterly based on the population of the Jail. (See ACH Contract §§ 3.1, 3.2.) The County itself employs nurses who visit the Jail regularly. (Smith Aff., Docket No. 78, Ex. D, E. Johnson Dep. 26:12-19, 22-24.) However, County nurses and Correctional Officers ("COs") are not authorized to make medication decisions. (Smith Aff., Docket No. 78, Ex. B, McDowell Dep. 40:16-23; Musich Dep. 24:14-20.)
Plaintiff's medical intake was conducted by Nurse Jolene Schlegel, who evaluated Plaintiff regarding his medical condition. Plaintiff reported to Nurse Schlegel that he had undergone back surgery in 1998 and that he had needed increased doses of OxyContin and Oxycodone since then. (Ex. I, at MACE-000100.) Nurse Schlegel obtained a medical release form from Plaintiff during their meeting. (Ex. I, at MACE-000100.)
Nurse Schlegel then called Defendant Dr. Norman Johnson ("Defendant Johnson") on the phone. Defendant Johnson is the owner and Chief Executive Officer of ACH. (See N. Johnson Dep. 18:22-19:3.) During their call, Nurse Schlegel told Defendant Johnson what Plaintiff had reported to her during the examination. Nurse Schlegel also told Defendant Johnson about Plaintiff's "pill count." (N. Johnson Dep. 106:24-107:6.) She explained that Plaintiff was missing pills, based on the dates of his prescriptions and dosage amounts. (N. Johnson Dep. 107:22-23.) Defendant Johnson became concerned about the missing pills because, to him, that fact indicated that Plaintiff was "either . . . taking them, which would certainly be dangerous, or . . . selling them, which would not be good." (Smith Aff., Docket No. 78, Ex. E, N. Johnson Dep. 107:19-108:3.)
Defendant Johnson decided that he should discontinue Plaintiff's OxyContin prescription for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff was missing pills and likely overusing them, (2) Plaintiff had a history of drug problems, and (3) Plaintiff was arrested for a drug offense and was thus at high risk for becoming addicted to his prescription drugs. (N. Johnson Dep. 107:19-108:3, 118:7-18.) Defendant Johnson wanted to discontinue what he thought was the most dangerous drug on Plaintiff's prescription list. (N. Johnson Dep. 112:5-13.)
Defendant Johnson discontinued Plaintiff's OxyContin prescription, continued Plaintiff's Oxycodone prescription, and ordered Plaintiff be weaned off Gabapentin. (N. Johnson Dep. 108:10-17, 111:23-112:2; see Schlegel Aff., Ex. A (showing that Plaintiff was to be given Gabapentin "until gone").) Regarding the Gabapentin, Defendant Johnson chose to continue it for a time because he was "unclear about the nature of [Plaintiff's] described pain." (N. Johnson Dep. 23:21-23.) With respect to the OxyContin and Oxycodone, Defendant Johnson thought it would be wiser to eliminate only one of the two opiates, not both, because "cut[ting Plaintiff] off completely" would create a greater chance for side effects. (N. Johnson Dep. 25:10-13, 108:18-23.) Defendant Johnson then instructed Nurse Schlegel to watch Plaintiff for signs of withdrawal. (Schlegel Aff., Ex. B, at RENVILLE 0008.) Later on, Dr. Paul E. Thompson, ACH doctor and the Jail's Medical Director (now deceased), signed off on Defendant Johnson's decision.
Defendant Johnson did not view Plaintiff's medical records or personally attempt to obtain them to verify Plaintiff's prescriptions. (N. Johnson Dep. 14:23-15:6; 21:12-19, 96:16-22; see Def.'s Supp. Answers Pl.'s Interrogs., Interrog. No.1.) Defendant Johnson claims this is something the nursing staff at the Jail does. (N. Johnson Dep. 14:23-15:6.) The only information Defendant Johnson knew about Plaintiff when he made his decision was the information he received via telephone conference with Nurse Schlegel. Additionally, Defendant Johnson did not personally meet or speak with Plaintiff on March 2. .) In Defendant Johnson's opinion, an in-person medical assessment was not necessary, as it is common practice in jails and nursing homes to conduct these decisions over the phone. (N. Johnson Dep. 110:10-19.)
Later that day, at 5:22 p.m., Nurse Schlegel faxed Plaintiff's medical release to the Twin Cities Pain Clinic. (Schlegel Aff. Ex. C.) This fax read: "Our faculty MD is requesting medical records to provide proper continuity of care." (Schlegel Aff., Ex. C.) Around 6:00 p.m., Plaintiff saw Nurse Schlegel again. (Schlegel Aff. ¶ 3, Ex. B, at RENVILLE 0008 - RENVILLE 0009.) He and Nurse Schlegel discussed his medication changes, and Plaintiff agreed that he would be referred to Dr. Edmund Nadolny, the Jail psychologist. (Nadolny Aff. ¶ 1, Docket No. 90; Schlegel Aff. ¶ 3, Ex. B, at RENVILLE 0008 - RENVILLE 0009.)
Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial