Robinson v. Corizon Health, Inc.

Decision Date13 December 2016
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1271
PartiesDAVID ROBINSON, v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC. f/k/a PHS CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, INC., et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

O'NEILL, J.

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff David Robinson, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, brings this action against the corporate provider of prison healthcare services, several prison doctors and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He sets forth violations of his constitutional rights under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, together with several state law claims, in connection with the defendants' failure to diagnose and treat his now advanced-stage kidney cancer. Defendants Corizon f/k/a Correctional Health Care, Inc., Bruce Blatt, M.D., Margarita McDonald, M.D., Richard Kosierowski, D.O., John Does, Jane Does, John Zaro, M.D. and Raymond Machak, P.A. (collectively, moving defendants) have filed the present motion to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint. For the following reasons, I will dismiss the Count I § 1983 claim against Corizon and the Count VI conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, but deny the motion in all other respects.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

According to the facts set forth in the second amended complaint,1 in 2000, PHS Correctional Healthcare, Inc. (PHS) served as the provider of healthcare throughout the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Sec. Am. Compl., ECF No. 64, ¶ 17. As a result of the merger between PHS and Correctional Medical Services, defendant Corizon Health, Inc. became the newly formed company. Id. ¶ 18. Corizon bore direct responsibility for recruiting and hiring its employees at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, including defendants Dr. Blatt, Dr. McDonald, Dr. Kosierowski, Dr. Stefanic, Dr. Zaro, Machak, P.A., Masino, P.A. and the Does (collectively, the medical defendants). Id. ¶ 19. Since 1991, the companies that make up Corizon have been sued more than 6,000 times for corporate negligence, medical malpractice and deliberate indifference in the provision of health care services to prisoners and pretrial detainees. Id. ¶ 22. Many of the inmate grievances that have been filed against the moving defendants have been routinely dismissed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Id. ¶ 21. In response to these lawsuits, Corizon has taken no responsibility for its corporate culture. Id. ¶ 23.

In 2000, Corizon contracted with the Commonwealth to provide medical services to all inmates, including plaintiff, through the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Id. ¶ 25. From that time, until Corizon's termination, Corizon was allegedly made aware that the medical defendants took cost-saving and bonus-driven actions that have caused injuries to plaintiff andother inmates at SCI-Graterford. Id. ¶ 27. Yet, Corizon encouraged these actions and implemented policies to improve its profitability. Id.

Plaintiff David Robinson is an inmate at SCI-Graterford and was supposed to receive medical treatment through Chronic Care Clinics (CCC) run by Corizon at Graterford. Id. ¶¶ 31, 34. At all relevant times, Corizon employed the medical defendants to provide medical services and treatment to plaintiff. Id. ¶ 35. Since 1994, prison health care administrators have recognized that the purpose of prison CCCs is to screen, identify and monitor patients with chronic illnesses in order to initiate appropriate therapeutic regimens and to provide patient education and counseling on healthy practices. Id. ¶ 36.

From 2000 to the present, various medical personnel employed by Corizon examined plaintiff in the CCC. Id. ¶ 38. In the summer of 2000, defendant Dr. Kosierowski diagnosed plaintiff with high blood pressure. Id. ¶ 43. Subsequent to that diagnosis, the various medical defendants prescribed and refilled prescriptions for medications including Docusate, Acetadinophen, Malodipine, Lisinopril, HCTZ, Aspir-law and Bisacodl. Id. ¶ 45. A non-defendant doctor, Dr. Rosen, discontinued Lisinopril on June 7, 2011 and put plaintiff on Cozaar/Losartan. Id. ¶ 47.

During the years 2005 and 2006, the medical defendants further examined plaintiff numerous times for the purpose of monitoring his high blood pressure and kidneys and to determine how he was responding to the cocktail of medicines they had prescribed. Id. ¶ 48. These tests included blood tests, urine tests and physical examinations, all of which are commonly used to determine whether a patient has or is developing kidney cancer. Id. ¶ 49. On March 15, 2006, a medical professional employed by Corizon made a notation on plaintiff's medical chart as follows: "UA: Trace protein Micro Albumin [sic] 5.2 Hi." Id. ¶ 50. Thisfinding was significant because when the kidneys are damaged, small amounts of albumin leak into the urine, a condition known as microalbuminuria. Id. ¶ 52. Microalbuminuria can be caused by high blood pressure and, if not treated early, can lead to chronic kidney disease. Id. ¶ 53. On March 15, 2006, plaintiff's microalbumin level was nearly three times the highest normal level. Id. ¶ 54. Yet, the medical defendants never performed another microalbumin test on plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 55-56.

On April 12, 2006, Dr. Zaro remarked that plaintiff had proteinuria and stated, in the medical record, that he would "add ACE for renal protection HTCZ." Id. ¶ 57. On that date, plaintiff was taking Cozaar/Losartan to treat his high blood pressure. Id.¶ 58. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Zaro knew or should have known that "concomitant use of [Cozaar/L]osartan and ACE-inhibitors has [been] shown to impair renal function," not protect plaintiff's kidneys or improve their functioning. Id. ¶ 59. Later in 2006, Dr. Kosierowski informed plaintiff that over the last six years, the cocktail of medicines that he and his colleagues had been prescribing would affect plaintiff's kidneys, but remained evasive on what that effect would be. Id. ¶¶ 60-61. Indeed, Dr. Kosierowski refused to answer plaintiff's direct question regarding the risk of kidney cancer from the medications. Id. ¶ 62. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Kosierowski, as well as all the medical defendants, knew at that time that plaintiff had or would imminently develop kidney cancer. Id. ¶¶ 63-64.

When the medical defendants discovered plaintiff had kidney cancer, the disease had not metastasized, making treatment relatively straightforward. Id. ¶ 66. Nonetheless, the medical defendants knowingly and willfully refused to use preventative medicine or send plaintiff to out-of-prison medical centers and doctors for prompt and adequate testing because they receive financial bonuses for avoiding use of such measures. Id. ¶¶ 65, 67. Instead, these defendantsallowed plaintiff to suffer from kidney cancer due to their financially-based motivations. Id. ¶ 68.

As of March 2011, the medical defendants had neglected to conduct proper medical examinations and failed to properly inform plaintiff of the true severity and extent of his medical conditions. Id. ¶ 73. On March 9, 2011, Dr. Stefanic examined plaintiff in connection with plaintiff's complaints of increasing abdomen pains over three days. Id. ¶ 74. Dr. Stefanic diagnosed his condition as possible constipation and prescribed lactulose/mineral oil. Id. ¶ 75. The doctor did not order another microalbumin test. Id. ¶ 77. Several hours later, plaintiff returned to the dispensary complaining of increased mid-abdominal pain. Id. ¶ 82. An unknown and non-defendant doctor diagnosed plaintiff's condition as an acute bowel obstruction and ordered an immediate transfer to an emergency room for further evaluation. Id. ¶ 83. Upon transfer to Suburban Mercy Hospital in Norristown, plaintiff was examined by a non-prison doctor and was told, following radiographic testing, that he had cancer in both of his kidneys. Id. ¶ 88. The doctor further informed plaintiff that the tumor in his right kidney had grown to the size of a grapefruit or softball. Id. ¶ 89. Thereafter, plaintiff was transferred to SCI-Pittsburgh for further examination and treatment. Id. ¶ 90.

On March 25, 2011, Dr. Gina M. Rooker, M.D., a non-prison doctor and an expert in urologic oncology, examined plaintiff. Id. ¶ 91. She opined that plaintiff should never have had such a large cancerous growth and that the medical defendants should have known of the cancer long before it metastasized to his left kidney. Id. She ordered a battery of tests to confirm the extent of damage to his kidneys and determined that he needed surgery to remove both the right kidney and cancerous tissue from the left kidney. Id. ¶ 93. On May 24, 2011, Dr. Rooker removed plaintiff's right kidney, which had been totally destroyed by the cancer. Id. ¶ 94. OnSeptember 27, 2011, Dr. Rooker performed a second surgery and removed the cancerous tissue from plaintiff's left kidney. Id. ¶ 98.

After plaintiff discovered that he had kidney cancer, he filed an inmate grievance pursuant to PA-DOC, DC-ADM 804. Id. ¶ 100. That grievance was rejected as untimely. Id. Plaintiff then filed another inmate grievance on June 27, 2011 and addressed it directly to Superintendent Michael Wenerowicz. Id. When he received no response, plaintiff filed an appeal to the Secretary's Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals, which told him that he had not properly appealed to the Facility Manager at SCI-Graterford. Id.

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint on December 14, 2010 (Civil Action No. 10-7165) against Prison Health Services (now known as Corizon), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, medical personnel and multiple individual state defendants. On March 29, 2012, he filed another case in this court (Civil Action No. 12-1271) against Corizon and the medical defendants. Plaintiff retained counsel on February 28, 2013 and, on May 23, 2013, I consolidated both civil matters.

Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint on August 7, 2013. Following review of the medical defendants...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT