Ponzini v. Primecare Med., Inc., 3:11–CV–00413
| Decision Date | 30 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | 3:11–CV–00413 |
| Parties | Peter PONZINI, Esquire and Miryem Barbaros, as Co–Administrators of the Estate of Mumun Barbaros, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Brian S. Chacker, Gay, Chacker & Mittin, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Gerard J. Geiger, Robert J. Kidwell, Newman, Williams, Mishkin, Corveleyn, Wolfe & Fareri, Stroudsburg, PA, Michael J. Donohue, Kreder, Brooks, Hailstone, LLP, Mark T. Perry, The Perry Law Firm, L.L.C., John J. Aponick, Jr., Mark Joseph Kozlowski, Marshall Dennehy Warner Coleman & Goggin, Scranton, PA, John R. Ninosky, Lemoyne, PA, Robert L. Byer, Duane Morris LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, John R. Hill, Bethlehem, PA, for Defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Presently before the Court are several post-trial motions filed by Defendants PrimeCare Medical, Inc., Paul James, Patricia Bauer, Christina Rowe, Wendy Johnson, and Grace Ramos (collectively, the "PrimeCare Defendants") and Dr. Alex Thomas ("Dr. Thomas"). (Docs. 354, 366). The Court notes at the outset that its decisions stated in this opinion were arrived at with little assistance from the submissions of the parties. In particular, the submissions of the PrimeCare Defendants and Dr. Thomas were consistently made without citations to the record and in many instances without supporting arguments or references to the applicable law. Nevertheless, and for the reasons set forth below, the PrimeCare Defendants and Dr. Thomas' motions will be granted in part and denied in part.
This case arises from the circumstances surrounding the death of Mumun Barbaros, a pretrial detainee at the Monroe County Correctional Facility (the "MCCF"). Plaintiffs Peter Ponzini and Miryem Barbaros, as Co–Administrators of the Estate of Mumun Barbaros ("Plaintiffs"), commenced this action on March 3, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Pennsylvania's Wrongful Death and Survival statutes, 42 PA. CONS.STAT.ANN. §§ 8301, 8302. (Doc. 1). The amended complaint alleged that the PrimeCare Defendants, Dr. Thomas, and Monroe County and various County officials violated Mr. Barbaros' Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate medical care. The amended complaint also alleged, inter alia , that the PrimeCare Defendants and Dr. Thomas were negligent in their treatment of Mr. Barbaros, and that their negligence caused Mr. Barbaros' death. (Doc. 43).
Following the conclusion of discovery, the PrimeCare Defendants, Dr. Thomas, and Monroe County moved for summary judgment. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motions. (Docs. 174, 176, 178).
An eight day jury trial was held September 6, 2016 through September 15, 2016.1 At the close of Plaintiffs' case-in-chief, the PrimeCare Defendants orally moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) on Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim, arguing that there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to find any of the PrimeCare Defendants liable. Defendant Paul James moved pursuant to Rule 50(a) and sought a directed verdict on Plaintiffs' negligence claim. Dr. Thomas also moved for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim. The Court deferred ruling on the motions.
At the close of the evidence, the PrimeCare Defendants, Paul James, and Dr. Thomas renewed their motions and the Court again deferred ruling on the motions. The day after the closing of the evidence and the charge conference, but before the case was submitted to the jury, PrimeCare Medical Inc. ("PrimeCare") moved for judgment as a matter of law, seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. The Court deferred ruling on the motion and the case was submitted to the jury.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs, finding that Dr. Thomas and the PrimeCare Defendants, with the exception of Wendy Johnson, violated Mr. Barbaros' Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate medical care and that these deprivations caused him harm. The jury awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $1,057,344 and apportioned liability as follows: 7% to Paul James, 7% to Patricia Bauer, 7% to Christina Rowe, 7% to Grace Ramos, 20% to Dr. Alex Thomas, and 52% to PrimeCare.
The jury also found that the PrimeCare Defendants and Dr. Thomas were negligent, and that each of the Defendants' negligence was a factual cause of Mr. Barbaros' death. The jury awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $2,000,000 under the Wrongful Death Act and $800,000 under the Survival Act. The jury found that 4% of the causal negligence was attributable to Paul James, Patricia Bauer, Christina Rowe, Grace Ramos, and Wendy Johnson each (for a total of 20%), 5% attributable to William Buffton, 20% to Dr. Alex Thomas, and 55% to PrimeCare.2 The jury also imposed $8,000,000 in punitive damages against PrimeCare on Plaintiffs' negligence claim only. On September 16, 2016 the Court entered judgment in the total amount of $11,857,344. (Doc. 338).
The PrimeCare Defendants subsequently filed various post-trial motions. (Doc. 366). Specifically, the PrimeCare Defendants renewed their motions pursuant to Rule 50(b), asserting that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient, as a matter of law, for a reasonable jury to find any of them liable under § 1983. PrimeCare also claimed there was insufficient evidence, as a matter of law, for the jury to award punitive damages. Additionally, the PrimeCare Defendants alleged that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient, as a matter of law, for a reasonable jury to find each of them liable for negligence. In the alternative, the PrimeCare Defendants requested a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and/or remittitur.3
Dr. Thomas also sought post-trial relief. (Doc. 354). He renewed his motion for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim and also filed a Rule 50(b) motion with respect to the negligence claim. Alternatively, Dr. Thomas requested a new trial and/or remittitur.
In the early morning hours of Wednesday March 18, 2009, Mr. Barbaros was arrested and transported to the MCCF, a correctional facility in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, housing approximately 350 inmates. He was held in the segregated housing unit without a cellmate and confined to his cell 22 hours per day. On the morning of March 22, 2009, Mr. Barbaros was found dead in his cell. An autopsy was performed and a fifteen centimeter long object consisting of tightly rolled remnants of a t-shirt that had been fabricated into the shape of a tubular plug was found wedged in Mr. Barbaros' posterior oropharynx. The cause of death was listed as "choking on a foreign object" and "suicide".
PrimeCare is a for-profit corporation that contracts with state and local governments to provide correctional healthcare services, including nursing, physician, and mental health services. Sept. 8, 2016 Trial Tr. at 91:16–94:24. It was incorporated in Pennsylvania and provides services throughout Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York and West...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burgos v. City of Phila.
...which specific policymaker should have promulgated a proper policy. See Parkell , 833 F.3d at 338.89 Ponzini v. PrimeCare Med., Inc. , 269 F. Supp. 3d 444, 525 (M.D. Pa. 2017), aff'd in part, vacated in part sub nom. Ponzini v. Monroe Cty. , 789 F. App'x 313 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing Natale , ......
-
Holber v. Nikparvar (In re Incare, LLC)
...Supp.2d 563, 575 n.3 (M.D. Pa. 2004); In re Singh, 433 B.R. 139, 143 n.1 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2010); see also Ponzini v. PrimeCare Med., Inc., 269 F. Supp. 3d 444, 603 (M.D. Pa. 2017), appeal pending, No. 17-3133 (3d Cir.). 3. There were two (2) days of testimony: March 23 and 24, 2017. Hereaft......
-
Miller v. Little
...so could properly be characterized as deliberate indifference to constitutional rights even without a pattern of constitutional violations.” Id. (quoting Thomas v. Cumberland Cnty., 749 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2014) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Miller does not tie any of the c......
-
Montanez v. Price
...in disregard of an obvious risk that its employees or agents would commit constitutional violations.” Ponzini v. PrimeCare Med., Inc., 269 F.Supp.3d 444, 526 (M.D. Pa. 2017), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds sub nom. Ponzini v. Monroe Cnty., 789 Fed.Appx. 313 (3d Cir. 2019). ......