Warrick v. United States

• Docket Number: 21-cv-06881
• Decision Date: 26 November 2024
• Citation: Warrick v. United States, 21-cv-06881 (N.D. Ill. Nov 26, 2024)
• Parties: CHARLES WARRICK, Independent Administrator of the Estate of ELLA ODESSA WARRICK Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

1

CHARLES WARRICK, Independent Administrator of the Estate of ELLA ODESSA WARRICK Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

No. 21-cv-06881

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

November 26, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARY M. ROWLAND, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff brings this action for negligence and wrongful death against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”).For the reasons stated below, the United States' motion for partial summary judgment[56] is granted, and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment[58][60][63][64][65] is denied.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a);see alsoCelotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322(1986).A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248(1986).The substantive law controls which facts are material.Id.After a “properly supported motion for summary judgment is made the adverse party‘must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'”Id. at 250(quotingFed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)).

The Court“consider[s] all of the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and [ ] draw[s] all reasonable inferences from that evidence in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.”Logan v City of Chicago, 4 F.4th 529, 536(7th Cir.2021)(quotation omitted).The Court“must refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing evidence.”Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., 951 F.3d 429, 467(7th Cir.2020)(citingAnderson, 477 U.S. at 255).In ruling on summary judgment, the Court gives the non-moving party“the benefit of reasonable inferences from the evidence, but not speculative inferences in [its] favor.”White v. City of Chicago, 829 F.3d 837, 841(7th Cir.2016)(internal citations omitted).“The controlling question is whether a reasonable trier of fact could find in favor of the non-moving party on the evidence submitted in support of and opposition to the motion for summary judgment.”Id.

When cross-motions for summary judgment are filed, “[t]he ordinary standards for summary judgment remain unchanged [and]we construe all facts and inferences arising from them in favor of the party against whom the motion under consideration is made.”Blow v. Bijora, Inc., 855 F.3d 793, 797(7th Cir.2017).“Cross-motions must be evaluated together, and the court may not grant summary judgment for either side unless the admissible evidence as a whole-from both motions-establishes that no material facts are in dispute.”Bloodworth v. Vill. of Greendale, 475 Fed.Appx. 92, 95(7th Cir.2012).

BACKGROUND

To avoid confusion, the Plaintiff, Charles Warrick as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Ella Odessa Warrick, will be referred to as the “Estate.”The decedent, Ella Odessa Warrick, will be referred to as “Ms. Warrick.”Defendant, the United States of America, will be referred to as the “Government.”I.Local Rule 56.1

The Court first addresses the Estate's failure to comply with Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1.“Local Rule 56.1 statements serve to streamline the resolution of summary judgment motions by having the parties identify undisputed material facts and cite the supporting evidence.”Laborers' Pension Fund v. Innovation Landscape, Inc., No. 15 CV 9580, 2019 WL 6699190, at *1(N.D. Ill.Dec. 9, 2019).The Seventh Circuit has “consistently upheld district judges' discretion to require strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1.”Kreg Therapeutics, Inc. v. VitalGo, Inc., 919 F.3d 405, 414(7th Cir.2019)(quotation omitted).The Seventh Circuit “allow[s] strict enforcement of the local rule recognizing that it is not the duty of the district court to scour the record in search of material factual disputes.”Id. at 415(quotation omitted).

“Local Rule 56.1 is designed to isolate the material facts and put them before the court in an orderly and concise manner.”Graney v. Hartford Fin. Services, Inc., No. 01 C 5869, 2002 WL 31248509, at *2(N.D. Ill.Oct. 4, 2002).The Seventh Circuit has “frequently said that it is within the district court's discretion to strictly enforce local rules regarding summary judgment by accepting the movant's version of facts as undisputed if the non-movant has failed to respond in the form required.”Zuppardi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 770 F.3d 644, 648(7th Cir.2014).

Rule 56.1 statements of material facts must consist of concise numbered paragraphs, not to exceed 80 numbered paragraphs, and each asserted fact must be supported by citation to the specific evidentiary material that supports it.LR56.1(d).The Estate's statement of facts violates each of these requirements.The Estate's statement of facts consists of 77 numbered paragraphs, but many are lengthy statements of multiple discrete facts, and some contain numbered subparagraphs.See e.g., [60]at ¶¶ 14, 31, 33, 45, 57.Additionally, many of the Estate's facts are not supported by the cited evidentiary material.See e.g., [74]at ¶¶ 11, 13, 17, 18, 50, 63, 71.

The Estate's memorandum of law in support of its motion for summary judgment also violates Rule 56.1.“When addressing facts, the memorandum must cite directly to specific paragraphs in the LR 56.1 statements or responses.”LR56.1(g).The memorandum should not cite directly to the record.Madaffari v. Metrocall Companies Group Policy GL, H-21163-0, Plan No. 501, No. 02 C 4201, 2005 WL 1458071, at *1(N.D. Ill.June 15, 2005).The Estate's brief repeatedly cites directly to the record and asserts facts not contained in its statement of facts.See e.g., [63].

Finally, a response to a statement of facts must admit, dispute, or admit in part and dispute in part with specificity the asserted facts.LR56.1(e)(2).A response may not assert legal arguments except to make an objection, and any argument that the objectionable material should not be considered should be included in the party's response or reply brief.Id.A response may not assert any new facts.Id.To dispute an asserted fact, specific evidentiary material that controverts the fact must be cited and explained.LR56.1(e)(3).The Estate's response to the Government's statement of facts repeatedly violates these rules.See e.g., [76]at ¶¶ 13-18, 58, 59, 61, 65(includes legal argument in response to facts);id.at ¶¶ 26, 35, 36, 42, 46, 50(asserts additional facts in response to facts);id. at ¶ 57(no citation or explanation to support denial of fact);id.at ¶¶ 58, 59, 61, 68(fails to admit or dispute fact).

The Government argues that the Court should disregard the Estate's improperly asserted facts, [73]at 6, and strike the entirety of the Estate's response to the Government's statement of facts, [80]at 1-2.The Court has discretion to strictly enforce Rule 56.1 or accept the properly supported facts and responses despite violations.Stevo v. Frasor, 662 F.3d 880, 887(7th Cir.2011).In its discretion, the Court declines to strike the entirety of the Estate's facts and responses to the Government's statement of facts.The Court will instead disregard facts that are unsupported by the record and responses that are unpersuasive.SeeOxford Bank & Tr. and Fifth Ave. Prop. Mgt. v. Village of La Grange, 879 F.Supp.2d 954, 960(N.D. Ill.2012).

II.Factual Background

The Court takes the following background facts from the Government's statement of facts [57-1] and statement of additional facts [73-1], and the Estate's properly supported statement of facts [60] and statement of additional facts [77].The facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

A.Ms. Warrick's Medical Care

Ms. Warrick, born in 1925, moved to Chicago, Illinois in 2018 to live with her son and daughter-in-law, Charles and Patricia Warrick. [60] at ¶ 5.On December 7, 2018, Ms. Warrick suffered a fall at home and went to the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center (“JBVA”)Emergency Department.Id.at ¶ 7, 9.On December 13, 2018, Ms. Warrick was admitted to the JBVA Community Living Center. [57-1] at ¶ 5.On December 19, 2018, nursing staff noted that Ms. Warrick had pressure ulcers, commonly known as bedsores, on her sacrum and both heels.Id.at ¶¶ 7-8;[60] at ¶ 18.On January 1, 2019, Ms. Warrick's sacral pressure ulcer was surgically debrided.Id.at ¶ 25.Debridement is a procedure that removes damaged, dead, or infected tissue.Seehttps://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bed-sores/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20355899.

On July 22, 2019, upon her and her family's request, Ms. Warrick was transferred to the Tuscaloosa VA Medical Center in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where Ms. Warrick had spent most of her life, for hospice care.[57-1] at ¶ 10;[60] at ¶ 29.Ms. Warrick's sacral and left heel pressure ulcers never healed. [60] at ¶ 29.Ms. Warrick passed away on August 5, 2019, at the Tuscaloosa VA Medical Center.Id.The causes of death listed on Ms. Warrick's death certificate were: (1) congestive heart failure; (2) cardiomyopathy; and (3) atrial fibrillation.[57-1] at ¶ 11.Ms. Warrick suffered from those conditions for over 20 years before she passed away.Id.No conditions were identified on her death certificate as other significant conditions contributing to death.Id.

B.VA OIG Complaint and Investigation

Around January 10, 2019, Charles Warrick, Ms. Warrick's son submitted a hotline complaint regarding his mother's care and pressure ulcer injuries to the VA Office of the Inspector General(“VA OIG”). ...