Stojcevski v. Cnty. of Macomb

• Decision Date: 09 November 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Case No. 15-11019
• Citation: 143 F.Supp.3d 675
• Parties: Vladimir Stojcevski, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Stojcevski, Plaintiff, v. County of Macomb, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

143 F.Supp.3d 675

Vladimir Stojcevski, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Stojcevski, Plaintiff,

v.County of Macomb, et al. Defendants.

Civil Case No. 15-11019

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed November 9, 2015

Harold A. Perakis, Ihrie, O'Brien, St. Clair Shores, MI, for Plaintiff.

John A. Schapka, Robert S. Gazall, Mount Clemens, MI, Ronald W. Chapman, Chapman Law Group, Troy, MI, Kimberley A. Koester, Christopher Trainor & Associates, White Lake, MI, for Defendants.

LINDA V. PARKER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF NOS. 15 & 17)

This lawsuit arises from the incarceration of two brothers in the Macomb County Jail in June 2014, and the claim that they were denied necessary medical care during their incarceration which tragically led to the death of David Stojcevski ("David") from acute drug withdrawal and the hospitalization of Vladimir Stojcevski ("Vladimir") due to symptoms allegedly resulting from Defendants' failure to provide him with his seizure medication. Vladimir, individually and as personal representative of David's estate (hereafter "Plaintiff"), names forty-seven Defendants in his Amended Complaint filed June 1, 2015, as well as unnamed John and/or Jane Doe Defendants. The defendants fall into two groups, which the Court will refer to as the "Macomb County Defendants" and the "Correct Care Solutions Defendants" (hereafter "CCS Defendants"). The Macomb County Defendants are: the County of Macomb; Sheriff Anthony M. Wickersham; Michelle M. Sanborn; Barb Caskey; Lisa Bingham; Deputy Licavoli; Deputy M. Murphy; Deputy Johnson; Deputy Keith Pethke; Deputy Paul Harrison; Deputy John Talos; Deputy William Misany; Deputy Steven Marschke; Deputy Matthew Salas; Deputy Kelly Kullman; Deputy William Horan; Deputy J. Dehate; Deputy Campau; Deputy Kruger; Deputy Piszczek; Sergeant Patrick Johnson; and Deputy John/Jane Does. The CCS Defendants are: Correct Care Solutions, LLC ("CCS"); Monica Cueny; Tiffany Deluca; Kelly Mann; Chantalle Brock; Deeann Pavey; Danyelle Nelson; Mical Bey-Shelley, Vicky Bertram, Heather Erhlich, Monica Van Damme,¹ Jaclyn Cubanski,² Amanda Bishop, LPN; Cynthia Deview, RN; Sarah Breen; Kelly Marie Hedtke, Psychologist; Temitope Oladokun Olagbaiye, RN/Nurse Practitioner; Priscilla Pickett LPN; Suzanne Rychwalski LPN; Dixie Debene; Dinal Good; Germain Ferrer, LPN; Thressa Williams; Linda Parton; Amber Barber; Dr. Lawrence Sherman; and John/Jane Doe providers.

Presently before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by the Macomb County Defendants and the CCS Defendants (collectively "Defendants"). The motions have been fully briefed and the Court held a motion hearing on October 14, 2015. For the reasons that follow, the Court is granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motions.

I. Factual and Procedural Background as to David

According to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, David was brought to the Macomb County Jail from Michigan's 39th District Court on June 11, 2014, to serve a thirty (30) day jail sentence or pay $772.00 for failing to appear on the civil infraction charge of careless driving. (ECF No. 9 ¶ 22.) The following information was gleaned by "various jail personnel, as well as CCS employees or agents" at David's intake: (a) he weighed 195 pounds; (b) his blood pressure was 120/84, his pulse rate was 97, and his respiratory rate was 12; (c) he had been prescribed Methadoneprior to incarceration; (d) he had potential for withdrawal, thereby resulting in a Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) being initiated; (e) his mental status was noted as "Alert orientation, Affect appropriate, Logical thought processes, Speech Appropriate, Mood Appropriate, Activity Appropriate." (Id . ¶ 28.) According to Plaintiff, COWS assessments were to be completed three times daily. (Id . ¶ 32.)

The Amended Complaint details David's physical and mental condition over the next fifteen days and the actions of some defendants in relation to David. The Court will avoid restating those lengthy allegations here and assumes the reader's familiarity with the Amended Complaint.

On June 27, at approximately 5:20 p.m., unidentified Defendants found David struggling to breathe and rushed him by ambulance to the hospital. (Id . at 71.) David's weight was measured at 145 pounds by the emergency medical technicians—a fifty pound loss from sixteen days earlier at intake into the jail. (Id .) Efforts to resuscitate David were unsuccessful, and he was pronounced dead at the hospital at 6:55 p.m. (Id . ¶ 72.) His death certificate records the cause of his death to be " 'Acute Withdrawal from Chronic Benzodiazepine, Methadone, and Opiate Medications' " with the approximate interval between onset of the cause of death and the death to be " '[w]eeks.' " (Id . ¶ 73.) The autopsy report reflects a final diagnosis and cause of David's death as: " 'Acute Withdrawal from Chronic Benzodiazepine, Methadoneand Opiate Medications, Dehydration with hypernatremia, and Seizure/seizure like activity.' " (Id . ¶ 74.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' "self-ordered 24 hour video monitoring of David from June 17, 2014 through June 27, 2014" reflects that David's mental and medical health deteriorated dramatically during those ten days. (Id . ¶ 59.) This included his loss of significant body weight. (Id .) According to Plaintiff, the video shows David's "excruciating pain and misery" during this period and "visibly apparent symptoms of benzodiazapene withdrawal, that ultimately took his life." (Id . ¶¶ 61, 64.)

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action based on the above-described conduct:

(I) against all Defendants, deliberate indifference to David's serious medical needs in "violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983and the 8th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution";

(II) "denial of medical treatment for serious medical needs" in violation of § 1983and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by the following defendants: (a) Macomb County Sheriff Anthony M. Wickersham; (b) the County; (c) Jail Administrator and County employee Michelle M. Sanborn; (d) Director of Macomb County Community Corrections and County employee Barb Caskey; (e) Supervisor of Community Service-March within Macomb County Community Corrections Lisa Bingham; and (f) "the individually named Defendants who had personal contact with Plaintiff, or who had video observance of David during his incarceration;

(III) "gross negligence, intentional, willful and wanton conduct" against all Defendants; and,

(IV) "failure to train, inadequate policies and/or procedures, customs and practices, customs and practices and failure to supervise-deliberate indifference" by the County, Wickersham, CCS, Sanborn, Caskey, and Bingham.³

II. Factual and Procedural Background as to Vladimir

On June 11, 2014, Vladimir also was brought to the Macomb County Jail from Michigan's 39th District Court, although he had been sentenced to serve thirty (30) days in jail or pay $655.00 for failing to appear on a Driving a Vehicle While License Suspended charge. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 18.) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint details Vladimir's condition upon arrival at the jail and during subsequent days and the conduct of some defendants in relation to Vladimir. Again, the Court assumes the reader's familiarity with the allegations in the Amended Complaint.

According to the Amended Complaint, Wickersham and CCS finally decided to release Vladimir from the jail to a hospital on June 23, 2014, heeding his "numerous and long-standing requests for medical care." (Id . ¶ 137.) It is alleged that upon admission to the hospital, Vladimir was suffering from:

(a) Systemic inflammatory response syndromecriteria with possible sepsis;

(b) Acute peritoneal cellulitis;

(c) Muscular edema secondary to infection versus inflammation of the bilateral gluteus maximus muscle group;

(d) Acute encephalopathy, non-specific etiology;

(e) Possible rectal mucosal tear secondary to anal trauma;

(f) Leukocytosis(increased white blood cell count);

(g) Acute intractable rectal and abdominal pain;

(h) Sacral wound; and

(i) Mild hypokalemia (low potassium).

(Id .)

The following claims are asserted in the Amended Complaint as a result of Defendants' alleged conduct with respect to Vladimir:

(1) against all defendants, deliberate indifference to his medical needs in "[v]iolation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983and the 8th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution" (Count V);

(2) against CCS, Wickersham, and the County, "denial of medical treatment for serious medical needs" in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (Count VI);

(3) against all defendants, "gross negligence, intentional, willful and wanton conduct (Count VII);

(4) against CCS, the County, and Wickersham, "failure to train, inadequate policies and/or procedures, customs and practices and failure to supervise-deliberate indifference" (Count VIII)⁴ ;and

(5) against all Defendants, intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IX).

III. Defendants' Arguments

In their motions to dismiss, Defendants first argue that Plaintiff has improperly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20the claims related to David's treatment while incarcerated in the County jail and those related to Vladimir's treatment. Defendants argue that the claims do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as David and Vladimir were "housed separately and had separate encounters with medical personnel, jail staff, and separate outcomes to their stays." (ECF No. 15 at Pg ID 379; ECF No. 17 Pg ID 444.) Defendants therefore ask the Court to sever the two brothers' claims.

Next, Defendants argue that the claims related to Vladimir and David are subject to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court will not describe those arguments with more specificity at this time. This is...