Ponzini v. Primecare Med., Inc., 3:11–CV–00413
| Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Citation | 269 F.Supp.3d 444 |
| 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. |
| Decision Date | 30 August 2017 |
269 F.Supp.3d 444
Peter PONZINI, Esquire and Miryem Barbaros, as Co–Administrators of the Estate of Mumun Barbaros, Deceased, Plaintiffs,
v.
PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., et al., Defendants.
3:11–CV–00413
United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.
Filed August 30, 2017
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.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert D. Mariani, United States District Judge
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY...470
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS...472
A. PrimeCare Medical, Inc....472
B. March 18, 2009–March 22, 2009...476
1. Paul James...476
2. Patricia Bauer...477
3. Christina Rowe...478
4. Wendy Johnson...480
5. Grace Ramos...482
6. Dr. Alex Thomas...483
7. William Buffton...485
8. Correctional Officers Cleary and Ryan...486
C. Expert Witnesses...487
1. Kathryn Wild...487
2. Dr. Peter Breggin...489
3. Dr. Lorne Sheren...490
4. David Hopkins...491
5. Terry Fillman...491
6. Dr. Lawrence Mendel...493
7. Dr. Lawrence Guzzardi...494
8. Dr. Cheryl Wills...494
9. Dr. Susan Rushing...496
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW...498
A. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law...498
B. Motion for a New Trial; Remittitur...499
IV. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW...500
A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 –Adequate Medical Care...500
1. The Individual PrimeCare Defendants...501
a. Paul James...506
b. Patricia Bauer...508
c. Christina Rowe...510
d. Grace Ramos...513
e. The Individual PrimeCare Defendants Did Not Violate Mr. Barbaros' Constitutional Right To Adequate Medical Care...515
2. Dr. Alex Thomas...517
3. PrimeCare Medical, Inc....522
a. PrimeCare's Policy, Practice, or Custom...524
i. Failure to Adopt Needed Policy...525
ii. Failure to Train/Supervise...525
b. Section 1983 Causation...529
4. Conditional Ruling on Motion for New Trial...530
B. Negligence...532
1. The PrimeCare Defendants...532
2. Dr. Alex Thomas...538
C. Punitive Damages...540
V. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL...546
A. The PrimeCare Defendants...546
1. Jury Instructions...548
a. Negligence Per Se Jury Instruction and Argument...548
b. Direct Causation and Increased Risk of Harm...553
c. Unpreserved Claims of Error...555
i. Inconsistent Verdicts...556
ii. Double Recovery...557
iii. Vicarious Liability–Punitive Damages...558
2. Evidentiary Rulings...561
a. The Criminal Charges Filed Against Barbaros...561
b. Preclusion of Alleged Statement Made to Correctional Officer Ryan...565
c. Permitting Evidence of the Misspelling of Mr. Barbaros' First Name...567
d. Permitting Mumtaz Barbaros to Testify...569
e. Preclusion of Testimony Regarding Alleged Misconduct of Correctional Officer Jesse Cleare...572
f. Unpreserved Claims of Error...573
3. Weight of The Evidence...574
a. The Individual PrimeCare Defendants...575
b. William Buffton...581
c. PrimeCare Medical, Inc...582.
i. Respondeat Superior...582
ii. Liability for Negligence of Independent Contractors...583
iii. Corporate Negligence...585
B. Dr. Alex Thomas...589
1. Permitting Dr. Breggin to Testify...589
2. Failure to Include Agency Question on Verdict Sheet...592
3. Weight of the Evidence...593
VI. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL–DAMAGES/REMITTITUR...595
A. Wrongful Death Damages...596
B. Survival Action Damages...598
C. New Trial–Compensatory Damages...600
VII. MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES...600
VIII. CONCLUSION...604
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.
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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...
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), Bky. No. 13-14926 ELF
...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. Hereafter, I wi......
-
Miller v. Little
...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). ......
-
Schiavone v. Luzerne Cnty.
...be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also 5 draw that inference.” Ponzini v. PrimeCare Med., Inc., 269 F.Supp.3d 444, 503 (M.D. Pa. 2017) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). Defendants do not argue that Decedent did not allege a serious med......