Moore v. Keller

• Decision Date: 28 October 2020
• Docket Number: 5:16-CV-1230
• Citation: 498 F.Supp.3d 335
• Parties: Michael MOORE, Lise Y. Moore, Sabria Moore, and Jalia Graham, Plaintiffs, v. Michael KELLER, Michael Jorgensen, and Joseph Nappo, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

498 F.Supp.3d 335

Michael MOORE, Lise Y. Moore, Sabria Moore, and Jalia Graham, Plaintiffs,

v.Michael KELLER, Michael Jorgensen, and Joseph Nappo, Defendants.

5:16-CV-1230

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed October 28, 2020

Filed October 29, 2020

OF COUNSEL: SIDNEY P. COMINSKY, ESQ., SYLVIA BODE KRAUS, ESQ., SIDNEY P. COMINSKY, LLC, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 1500 State Tower Building, Syracuse, NY 13202.

HON. LETITIA A. JAMES, New York State Attorney General, OF COUNSEL: AIMEE COWAN, ESQ., Ass't Attorney General, Attorneys for Defendants, 300 South State Street, Suite 300, Syracuse, NY 13202.

MEMORANDUM–DECISION and ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 19, 2016, plaintiffs Michael Moore ("Michael"), Lise Y. Moore ("Lise"), Sabria Moore ("Sabria"), and Jalia Graham ("Jalia") (collectively "plaintiffs") filed this civil rights action in Supreme Court, Onondaga County, against defendants SUNY Upstate University police officers Michael Keller ("Officer Keller"), Paul Daugherty ("Officer Daugherty"), Michael Jorgensen ("Officer Jorgensen"), Joseph Nappo ("Officer Nappo"), public safety officer Stephen Mauser ("Officer Mauser"), and registered nurse Julie Sunser ("Nurse Sunser"). According to plaintiffs’ ten-count complaint, these defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state law when they forcibly prevented Michael from leaving Upstate University Hospital ("SUNY Upstate" or the "hospital") and then arrested his wife and children when they tried to intervene on his behalf.

On October 11, 2016, defendants removed the action to federal court and answered the complaint.¹ Dkt. Nos. 1, 4. Before discovery commenced in earnest, plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court based on their contention that, inter alia , the state law claims presented novel and complex questions under New York's Mental Hygiene Law. Dkt. No. 10. After oral argument, that request was denied. Moore v. Keller , 2017 WL 3822053 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2017). Thereafter, the parties completed discovery and stipulated to the dismissal of all claims against police officer Paul Daugherty, public safety officer Stephen Mauser, and registered nurse Julie Sunser. Dkt. Nos. 63, 67, 68.

On April 22, 2020, Officer Keller, Officer Jorgensen, and Officer Nappo (collectively "defendants") moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 56 for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Dkt. No. 72. The motion has been fully briefed and will be considered on the basis of the submissions without oral argument.

II. BACKGROUND

The story of how Michael and his family ended up at the hospital starts with two car crashes. On June 4, 2013, at about 4:35 in the afternoon, Michael rear-ended a driver at a stop sign. Defs.’ Rule 7.1(a)(3) Statement ("Defs.’ Facts"), Dkt. No. 72-1 ¶¶ 4-5, 8. According to Michael, the collision happened because the brakes failed on his pickup truck.² Id. ¶ 6; see also Ex. P to Cowan Decl. ("Michael Dep."), Dkt. No. 72-17 at 42.³

Michael gave the other driver his insurance card, but he did not stick around to give the police his version of the story. Defs.’ Facts ¶ 8. Instead, Michael left the scene of the first accident and promptly got into a second crash. Id. By that time his truck was totaled, so Michael left the scene of the second accident and walked home. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Michael's odd behavior could probably be explained as the symptoms of a concussion—he would later testify that he banged his head on the driver's side window during the second crash. Defs.’ Response, Dkt. No. 82-3 ¶ 177; Michael Dep. at 51.

When he got home, Michael immediately went to bed. Defs.’ Facts ¶ 11. The next morning, his wife Lise could not get him to wake up. Id. Alarmed, she called one of Michael's friends over to try to wake him, but Michael's friend did not have any more luck rousing him than she did. Id. ¶ 12. So Lise called an ambulance, which took Michael to SUNY Upstate. Id. ¶ 13. Michael remained unconscious in the hospital's ICU for several days. Id. ¶ 14.

On June 7, 2013, Michael finally woke up. Defs.’ Facts ¶ 15. He was disoriented and confused, and could not remember much about what had happened. Id. ¶¶ 15-16; Michael Dep. at 45, 51. Although Michael's condition seemed like it might be due to injuries from one or both of the car accidents, Lise, who worked in administration at another hospital nearby, had talked to her co-workers and become concerned that maybe something else was going on with her husband—she had found "an incoherent note" in the bedroom written by Michael that, according to defendants, "implied he had taken a drug overdose" in a possible attempt to commit suicide. Id. ¶ 18; see also Ex. Q to Cowan Decl. ("Lise Dep."), Dkt. No. 72-18 at 26-27.

The "incoherent note," whatever it actually was, has since disappeared. Lise Dep. at 28. And Lise herself quickly dismissed the idea that her husband had tried to hurt himself or anyone else. Id. at 27-29. As she explains, she was not even sure whether Michael had written the note right around the time of the car accidents or if it had been there for a while already. Id. at 27. But she did tell the staff at SUNY Upstate about this "odd scribbling" when Michael was unconscious in the ICU, since in her telling the note seemed a bit out of character for him. Id. at 26-27. This seemingly innocuous bit of information was duly recorded by the hospital staff, which helped set off the chain of events that eventually led to this lawsuit.

Upon awakening, Michael was seen by Dr. Ramamurthy, a psychiatrist, who noted that Michael appeared confused, unfocused, and unengaged. Ex. I to Cowan Decl., Dkt. No. 71-10 at 2. Dr. Ramamurthy opined that all of Michael's symptoms might well be explained on the basis of a head injury

or concussion from the car accidents. Id. at 3. However, Dr. Ramamurthy went on to speculate that an overdose and attempted suicide might be a possibility, too. Id. In support of the idea that Michael had experienced possible suicidal ideation, Dr. Ramamurthy's treatment note included a reference to the so-called "suicide note" found by Lise and recorded by hospital staff in Michael's medical chart. Id. at 1. And it turns out that an initial test of Michael's urine had suggested the possible presence of benzodiazepines, a controlled substance. Id. at 3-4.

Dr. Ramamurthy concluded that more testing and observation was warranted before making any firm conclusions about the underlying cause of Michael's disoriented condition. Ex. I to Cowan Decl., Dkt. No. 71-10 at 3-4. As relevant here, Dr. Ramamurthy's examination note instructs:

Please do not discharge this patient. He does not have the capacity, at least now, to make a decision about going home. Even when he becomes more coherent, he will need to be assessed for suicidal ideation. Thus, he cannot go home then, either, until we have clarified the course of events.

Defs.’ Facts ¶ 20.

That evening, Michael was transferred out of the ICU and into a regular room on the sixth floor of the hospital. Defs.’ Facts ¶ 22. Michael and Lise were joined there by Sabria and Jalia, his two teenage children.⁴ Id. ¶¶ 2-3. Before long, however, Michael objected to an aide the hospital had assigned to follow his every move. Id. ¶ 26. According to Lise's deposition testimony, her husband wanted "to take a bath and go to the bathroom," but the female aide insisted that "she had to go with him." Lise Dep. at 35-36.

The parties agree the aide was there in accordance with SUNY Upstate policy, which required a patient to remain under "one-to-one constant observation" when they are under a "Suicide Precaution." Defs.’ Facts ¶ 24. This intrusive arrangement frustrated Michael, who eventually asked to leave the hospital. Id. ¶ 28. According to defendants, Michael was not free to leave the hospital because of this Suicide Precaution. Id. ¶¶ 23, 25. Plaintiffs, for their part, contend that the hospital had not validly placed Michael on a suicide watch or hold because the hospital's staff had not followed certain procedures required under New York law. See Defs.’ Response ¶ 188-90.

In any event, Michael tried to leave the hospital at this time. Defendants contend that Michael and Lise began making a scene, yelling and causing a disruption that could be heard by other patients nearby. Defs.’ Facts ¶¶ 29-30. Plaintiffs dispute this characterization of their behavior, but acknowledge that they were frustrated by the lack of clear answers about Michael's situation and the intransigence of the hospital staff. Pls.’ Response ¶¶ 27, 29-30.

At about 7:47 p.m., registered nurse Jennie Pharaoh ("Nurse Pharaoh") called security for help. Defs.’ Facts ¶¶ 21, 31. SUNY Upstate police dispatch initially sent Sergeant Frank Barrett ("Sergeant Barrett") to respond. Id. ¶ 33. Sergeant Barrett is employed by Securitas, a security company hired by SUNY Upstate to provide public safety officers for the hospital. Id. ¶¶ 32-33. Upon arrival, Sergeant Barrett observed that Michael and his family members were "agitated" with the nursing staff, who were doing their best to prevent the family from leaving the sixth floor. Pls.’ Response ¶ 33. Sergeant Barrett called for backup. Id. ¶ 34. SUNY Upstate police dispatch relayed to University Police that a "high risk" patient was trying to leave. Defs.’ Facts ¶ 35.

At about 7:51 p.m., defendants Officer Keller, Officer Jorgensen, and Officer Nappo arrived on the scene. Defs.’ Facts ¶ 36. Hospital staff told the three officers that Michael "was on a psychiatric watch, [had been] assigned a safety companion [an aide,] and [ ] was not allowed to leave the hospital." Id. ¶ 40. This development did not do much to improve anyone's mood. Pls.’ Response ¶¶ 43-46. Eventually, however, a nurse managed to explain to the family that Michael could not leave the hospital yet because (a) he was on suicide watch and (b) a psychiatrist had not evaluated him. Defs.’ Facts ¶¶ 48, 55. The family...