Staley v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:18-cv-941-TC |
| Parties | EDWARD C. STALEY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Pro se plaintiff Edward Staley, who is a veteran and retired dentist, has filed various claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act[1] (FTCA) against the United States in connection with medical treatment he received from employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). His first set of claims relates to alleged malpractice by dental/periodontics professionals-the dental malpractice claim-and malpractice by medical and mental health professionals-the medical malpractice claim. The remaining claims assert gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium.
The United States has filed a motion for summary judgment in which it asserts that (1) Dr. Staley did not submit a timely administrative claim for dental malpractice; (2) Utah's statute of repose bars Dr. Staley's medical malpractice and dental malpractice claims; (3) Dr. Staley cannot establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice because he lacks the necessary expert witness evidence; and (4) his remaining tort claims fail for various reasons, including a lack of evidence.
The United States also filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude Dr. Staley's expert testimony on issues relating to his medical malpractice claim. Dr. Staley filed a competing motion in limine asking for an order excluding testimony of the United States' expert witness, to which the United States responded by filing a motion to strike.
For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the United States' Motion in Limine to exclude Dr. Staley's expert testimony concerning medical malpractice, grants the United States' Motion to Strike Dr. Staley's Motion in Limine, and grants the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff Edward Staley is a retired dentist who has periodontal disease. As a veteran, he received treatment for various medical ailments from professionals in the VA Salt Lake City health care system. He primarily contends that VA professionals failed to diagnose and treat his periodontitis which led to extensive bone loss.
Dental and periodontal professionals from the VA have cared for his teeth and treated his advancing gum disease and bone loss since at least 2007. Dr. Staley asserts he first learned of the harm that was caused by failure to properly diagnose and treat the disease when he saw VA periodontist Dr. Eric Badger on January 6, 2014.
In November 2015, he submitted a claim to the VA alleging that those VA professionals committed malpractice by failing to timely diagnose and treat his periodontitis over the years. He followed that claim with an April 2016 claim alleging malpractice in connection with VA professionals' treatment of his other maladies, both physical and psychological.
Dr Staley, who was required to exhaust administrative remedies under the FTCA, filed two administrative claims with the VA using the Standard Form 95 (SF-95). The first SF-95, dated November 3, 2015, asserted his dental malpractice claim. In the second SF-95, dated April 1, 2016, he filed his medical malpractice claim.
In his November 2015 form SF-95, he wrote, in the form's box titled “date and day of accident, ” “Discovered 1-6-2014.” (Nov. 3, 2015 SF-95, attached as Ex. B to Pl.'s Am. Compl., ECF No. 3.) In Box 8, for the “basis of claim, ” he wrote, (Id.) In the section asking the claimant to “state nature and extent of each injury … which forms the basis of the claim, ” Dr. Staley wrote, (Id.)
Dr. Staley filed his medical malpractice claim five months later, on April 1, 2016. For the “date and day of accident, ” he wrote, “last several years - ongoing.” (Apr. 1, 2016 SF-95, attached as Ex. J to Pl.'s Am. Compl., ECF No. 3.) To identify the “time, ” he wrote “always lately.” (Id.) And the “basis of claim” was simply “failure to adequately and humanely treat pain & suffering while supposedly under the care of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, ” accompanied by a three-page attachment. In that document, he presented a lengthy narrative describing a myriad of maladies, including “pain and inflammation” from tissue damage and spinal injuries, “C-reactive protein (crp) level, ” diabetes, sleep disorders, “myofascial and chronic pain syndromes, ” osteoporosis, and “pain and numbness” in his leg and foot. (Id.) Finally, under “State nature and extent of each injury … which forms the basis of the claim, ” Dr. Staley reiterated his earlier response by writing “failure to adequately and humanely treat pain and suffering.” (Id.)
The VA denied his claims. He then filed a complaint in this court on December 7, 2018.
In his Amended Complaint, Dr. Staley elaborated on his SF-95 allegations. His dental malpractice claim focuses on the VA's alleged failure to “properly evaluate, diagnose, record, monitor, inform the Plaintiff concerning, prevent, and/or treat progressing moderate to severe periodontal bone destruction and attachment deterioration ….” (Am. Compl. ¶ 32, ECF No. 3.) He again alleges that he discovered his injury on January 6, 2014:
Before 2014, during the time he had been under the care of the VA, Dr. Staley had never been legally diagnosed, informed of, treated, or referred for treatment for severe periodontal bone loss as diagnosed on 01/06/2014 on which day he was, finally, formally evaluated and diagnosed with chronic, generalized moderate to severe periodontitis (periodontal bone and attachment loss) with (generalized) gingival recession. … In fact, the dental portion of Dr. Staley's VA ratings examination on 6/19/2001 stated no bone loss in his mandible or maxilla. Therefore, 01/06/2014 was the day Plaintiff first discovered he had such severe damages . . . .
(Id. ¶¶ 20-21.)
His medical malpractice claim is much broader. He alleges, for example, that as a result of the alleged negligent medical treatment at the VA, he suffers from “high level global pain, both chronic and acute, ” “chronic low serum sodium levels, ” “myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome, ” “osteopenia/osteoporosis, ” “extremely high … level of inflammatory C-reactive protein, ” “cardiovascular disease, ” “system inflammation, ” “erectile dysfunction, ” “carotid artery calcifications, ” “kidney disease, ” “chronic hyperglycemia, ” and “ophthalmologic (cataracts and retina)” conditions. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 45.)
Dr. Staley does not, however, limit his medical malpractice complaint to physical maladies. He also alleges mental health injuries.
Defendants VA failed to explore the possibility of his diagnosed anxiety conditions being predominantly caused by his history of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) instead of their diagnosis of major depression, for which Dr. Staley never met criteria for that diagnosis in DSM-IV or V (catalogs of classifications of mental disorders used by mental health professionals during the periods of Plaintiff's treatment.) VA, thus, failed to explore any and all therapeutic avenues available to them, allowing patient to continue to needlessly suffer. In fact, VA ignored their own available specific therapies for PTSD for the Plaintiff, even though the condition had been diagnosed years before.
(Id. ¶ 41.) He further alleges that his systemic physical maladies were caused or exacerbated by sub-par medical treatment and “contributed to physical and mental pain and suffering, and continue to contribute to profound emotional distress causing frustration, bitterness, anger, family discord, and loss of consortium, and greatly aggravating the consequences of his diagnosed PTSD and anxiety, among other effects.” (Id. ¶ 48.)
Rather than focusing on the specific actions of individuals, he alleges a broad swath of treatment received over several years by a general group of people:
Defendant VA's employee dentists and other healthcare/medical/dental providers, agents, employees, staff, administrators, residents, students and educators who have been responsible for and have participated in Plaintiff's care, either directly or indirectly acting on behalf and under the auspices of the Defendant VA, … always had a choice of acting with reasonable diligence to ensure the standards of care were met ….
(Id. ¶ 50.)
Both parties have designated expert witnesses. Dr. Staley has one expert: himself. He produced the “EXPERT REPORT OF Edward C. Staley, DDS, FSGD, ABGD, ” in which he declares, “As a licensed dentist and former dental educator for the last 45 years, I am an expert for myself, the Plaintiff, in this Pro Se litigation.” (Staley Expert Report, Ex. 2 to Mot. for Summ. J. at 14, ECF No. 26-2.) According to his Report, he is certified by the “American Board of General Dentistry … and the Federal Services Board of General Dentistry, an entity recognized by the Defendant, United States, for federally employed dentists with 2 years of education and training in a general dentistry residency accredited by American Dental Association.” (Id.) He is retired from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial