STOUDEMIRE v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 07-15387 |
| Parties | MARTINIQUE STOUDEMIRE, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, a public entity, PATRICIA CARUSO, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, GEORGE J. PRAMSTALLER, D.O., MDOC Chief Medical Officer, RICHARD RUSSELL, MDOC Bureau of Health Care Administrator, SUSAN DAVIS, Warden, Huron Valley Women's Facility, MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA, M.D., UYEN THAI-BUDZINSKI, M.D., Nursing Staff JANET ADAMICK, R.N., ANITA M. LEECH, FRANK WINTERSTEEN, Corrections Officer ARRIEL N. DUNAGAN, in their Official and Individual capacities, jointly and severally, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.
This litigation relates to issues involving the health care treatment that was administered to the Plaintiff, Martinique Stoudemire, while she was in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"). In an amended complaint, Stoudemire has specifically accused the Defendants1 of violating her rights under (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) Title II of 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and (3) Mich. Comp. .Law. § 333.1722.
On July 7, 2010, the "MDOC Defendants" filed a motion which they sought to obtain the dismissal of the complaint against them, as well as procure the entry of a summary judgment in their favor. Two days later, the "Independent Doctors" filed a similar request for dispositive relief. Both motions are now ready for a final resolution by the Court.
At age of ten or eleven years, Stoudemire was diagnosed with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ("Lupus"), a chronic, inflammatory disease of the immune system which can adversely affect a person's heart, lungs, kidneys, and circulatory system. In her application for Social Security benefits, she also claims to have suffered from coagulopathy - a tendency to develop blood clots - which requires life-long treatment with anticoagulation medicine.2 The latter illness (i.e., coagulopathy) caused Stoudemire to incur circulatory problems, including renal dysfunction and the need for a bypass of an artery in her left leg.
Although she had been treated for both medical conditions prior to being placed in the custody of the MDOC in July of 2002,3 Stoudemire notes that these diseases were controlled and all of her organs were functioning at that time. However, when she was released from custody five years later, things had changed, in that Stoudemire was a double amputee, having lost a toe, both legs from the knee down, and was at risk of losing her left arm. She had also developed serious kidney problems and other complications while in prison. Pointing to these medical maladies, Stoudemire accuses the Defendants in this law suit of creating deficiencies that are related to their (1) faulty administration of proper health care, (2) failure to maintain her privacy and confidentiality, and (3) refusal to accommodate her disabilities.
In terms of health care issues, Stoudemire, through an amended complaint, accuses the Defendants of wrongfully denying her anticoagulation medication for at least one year, and thereafter providing it only at inadequate, non-therapeutic levels. She asserts that this failing by the Defendants caused the formation of blood clots, embolisms, the need for vascular surgery in her legs, chronic renal failure, cardiac arrest, the loss of her left big toe, and ultimately, double amputation of her legs. Moreover, it is her position that the Defendants' superficial medical treatment and the lack of coordinated health care efforts produced a serious form of pneumonia. To defend against the Defendants' motions for a summary judgment relating to her health care concerns, Stoudemire points to several pieces of documentary evidence. First, she points to a grievance that was filed by her at the MDOC on August 11, 2002 which should have put the Defendants on notice of her hypercoagulable medical state. Stoudemire also submitted a May 6, 2003 letter to the MDOC administration, in which she, citing to her fragile medical state (i.e., Lupus, vasculitis, blood clotting, and kidney damage), sought to obtain regular medical tests, including blood work, leg ultrasounds and urinalyses.4 Stoudemire complains that, notwithstanding this request for relief, she did not receive a visit from a doctor regarding these problems until November of 2003 - nearly sixteen months after her incarceration.
In Stoudemire's view, this neglect by the physicians at the MDOC caused her to sustain a number of avoidable adverse reactions. For instance, approximately one month after her first contact with a medical specialist, she experienced vomiting, chest pain, along with a pain and numbness in her left arm, which - according to Stoudemire - was caused by a clot which blocked nearly half the diameter of her descending aorta. In her opinion - a view point that is shared by Dr. Jerry Walden - such a condition mandates a lifelong regimen of anticoaugulation with Coumadin, along with the administration of another drug (Lovenox) following the surgical removal of a blood clot on December 30, 2003. Upon her discharge from the hospital and immediate return to prison on February 27, 2004, the Lovenox was discontinued. Thereafter, she was placed on Coumadin that, in her opinion, is a cheaper and less effective drug which requires close monitoring to avoid bleeding or inappropriate clotting. Furthermore, Stoudemire submits that the alleged failure of Dr. Muhammad Mustafa thereafter to monitor and maintain her Coumadin dosages at proper therapeutic levels5 (1) eliminated the possibility that her arteries could have been kept open and partially recovered, and (2) precipitated the need for the subsequent amputation operation. She also points to claims of gross neglect by Dr. Thai-Budzinski during her post-amputation period.
Stoudemire also accuses both physicians of, inter alia, failing to provide her with appropriate rehabilitative measures after the amputation surgery had been completed. Furthermore, Stoudemire notes, for example, that she did not receive her final right leg prosthesis until more than a full year after her amputation on March 11, 2004. She also submits that even though both of her arms were at risk of amputation, Dr. Mustafa "flatly refused" to consider her request for a motorized wheelchair.
Furthermore, it is Stoudemire's contention that Dr. Thai-Budzinski acted with a level of similar disregard for her precarious medical condition when he allowed her to be placed in an unsanitary temporary segregation facility after being diagnosed with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ("MRSA") in the stump of her newly-amputated leg. Complaining that this unsanitary temporary segregation facility neither physician took her medical conditions into account nor prescribed a plan which provided for a safe and clean transfer between her wheelchair and the bed, toilet or shower, Stoudemire asserts that the conduct of Dr. Thai-Budzinski, in addition to the other Defendants herein, had the practical effect of deprived her of basic medical care, shelter and sanitation.
Stoudemire has sued the MDOC Defendants for their violations of her privacy. One set of allegations pertain to the presence of male and female guards in her hospital room during off-site visits, which enabled them to overhear her medical consultations, observe her examinations, and view her in various states of undress and while using the bedpan. On similar grounds, Stoudemire seeks damages for a strip search that was conducted on February 10, 2007 by Arriel Dunagan, a corrections officer without any adequate level of privacy. She claims that Dunagan, without giving her the option of submitting to a pat-down search,6 ordered her to undergo a strip search without providing a reason. The MDOC Defendants dispute this version of the incident by asserting that Stoudemire unilaterally created the circumstances about which she has complained. In essence, the MDOC Defendants maintain that the claimed embarrassment suffered by Stoudemire was self-imposed.
Stoudemire alleges that between December 2004 and her release from custody on parole in August of 2007, the MDOC Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate her disabilities while driving her to and from various outside clinics and hospitals. She claims that rather than placing her in a specially equipped van to transport physically disabled passengers, the MDOC Defendants only utilized regular vans and provided her with no assistance whatsoever in gaining access to and out of the vehicle.
She also notes that the MDOC staff routinely refused to change her wound dressings, berated her for seeking assistance when using the toilet, refused her requests for showers, and took an unreasonable amount of time to fit her with a prosthetic leg which, in turn, delayed her ability to begin physical rehabilitation. Stoudemire further alleges that the Defendants failed to provide her with assistive devices like orthopedic shoes (following the amputation of her left great toe), grab-bars or a bed trapeze for mobility, a proper chair for using the toilet, or a motorized wheelchair (based on the pain in her limbs and blisters on her hands from infection). Moreover, as indicated above, Stoudemire challenges the decision by the prison authorities to confine her to segregated facilities inasmuch as this arrangement exposed her to unsafe and unsanitary conditions, deprived her of necessary assistance in the treatment of her wounds, caused her to occasionally defecate on herself, and caused her to sustain profound despair and mental health concerns.
Fed R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires an aggrieved party to file a complaint that will provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing...
To continue reading
Request your trial