Williams v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
| Decision Date | 20 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-cv-2062 (EGS),16-cv-2062 (EGS) |
| Parties | DAMOND LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Damon Lee Williams ("Mr. Williams"), a veteran of the United States Air Force, brings this medical malpractice action against the United States Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") and the United States of America (collectively, the "Defendants") under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), arising from his treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center ("VAMC") in Washington, D.C. See generally First Am. Compl. ("FAC"), ECF No. 48.1 In October 2013, Mr. Williams arrived at the VAMC with swelling in his left foot, throat, and jaw. Asserting that the VAMC staff failed to properly treat his left foot, Mr. Williams contends that the VAMC staff acted negligently, and that they were negligentlysupervised in treating his left foot.
The Defendants move for summary judgment and the preclusion of Mr. Williams' proposed expert opinions. Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions, the applicable law, and the entire record herein, the Court concludes that additional discovery is warranted to allow Mr. Williams to demonstrate an essential element of his FTCA claims—the applicable standard of care—based on expert testimony. Because the Court has not set a trial date in this case, the Court will exercise its discretion to re-open discovery for the limited purpose of permitting Mr. Williams to either file a supplemental expert report or retain a new expert witness to present expert testimony concerning the applicable standard of care. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Mr. Williams' request for leave to amend his expert opinions or disclose a new expert, and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' Motion to Preclude Expert Opinions and for Summary Judgment.
Mr. Williams served as an aircraft fuel maintenance engineer in the Air Force until he was honorably discharged in 1997. Defs.' Ex. E, ECF No. 44-2 at 47-48.2 After working for anaerospace company on Andrews Air Force Base, Mr. Williams eventually became an independent, personal physical fitness trainer. Defs.' Ex. A, ECF No. 44-2 at 10. On October 20, 2013, Mr. Williams participated in an athletic event, "Tough Mudder," which involved completing an obstacle course by "[c]limbing rope, pulling stones, carrying logs, running up hills, running down hills, pulling sleds, [and] climbing walls." Pl.'s Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. B, ECF No. 44-2 at 18.
During the competition, a pebble entered Mr. Williams' shoe, causing a scrape to his left foot. Id. at 19. After cleaning it, Mr. Williams applied a bandage to his left foot to stop the bleeding. Id. A few days later, Mr. Williams experienced "stiffness" and "swelling" in his left foot, making it difficult for him to walk. Id. at 20. On October 29, 2013, Mr. Williams called the VAMC's Advice Line, complaining about an "infection in [his] right lower molar" and "swelling and pain in [his] right jaw and [the] back of [his] throat." Defs.' Ex. C, ECF No. 44-2 at 37.
The next day, on October 30, 2013, Mr. Williams arrived at the VAMC without an appointment, using a cane and complaining about, inter alia, his left foot that was "stiff" and "swollen"with a "reddish tint." Pl.'s SOMF, ECF No. 46-2 at 1 ¶ 1; see also Pl.'s Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. B, ECF No. 44-2 at 21-22. First, a nurse, Arleen Gray ("Ms. Gray"), took Mr. Williams' temperature, Pl.'s Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. B, ECF No. 44-2 at 23-24, noting that the "Chief Complaint" of Mr. Williams was "pain and swelling of [the] neck and jaw from [an] infected tooth [in the] r[igh]t lower molar [for the past] 4 days," Defs.' Ex. C, ECF No. 44-2 at 34-35.
Next, a nurse practitioner, Marguerite McGarrah ("NP McGarrah"), checked Mr. Williams' glands and looked at his left foot. Pl.'s Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. B, ECF No. 44-2 at 25 ( ).3 As NP McGarrah observed him, Mr. Williams removed his left shoe and sock. Pl.'s SOMF, ECF No. 46-2 at 2 ¶ 3; see also Pl.'s Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. B, ECF No. 44-2 at 26 (). Mr. Williams did not request any tests of his left foot. Pl.'s Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. B, ECF No. 44-2 at 28.
NP McGarrah's medical notes from the October 30, 2013 visitdo not reflect her examination of his left foot or lower extremity. Defs.' Reply to Pl.'s SOMF, ECF No. 47-1 at 2 ¶ 8. NP McGarrah, however, noted that the "Clinical Observation" involved an examination of Mr. Williams' mouth, noting "slight swelling [on the] r[igh]t side of [his] jaw." Defs.' Ex. C, ECF No. 44-2 at 35. NP McGarrah also noted that Mr. Williams' mouth was "unremarkable," the "thyroid feels puffy," and there was "puffiness" on the right side of his neck that "extends around to [the] thyroid." Id. at 36. NP McGarrah prescribed Mr. Williams with Penicillin VK with "some misgivings, in light of past h[istory] and concern for antib[iotic] resistance." Id. at 37.
A few days after the October 30, 2013 visit, Mr. Williams boarded a plane to Seattle, Washington. Pl.'s Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. B, ECF No. 44-2 at 30. At that point, Mr. Williams was "[s]till feeling bad"; there was "[n]ot really much improvement"; and "[t]he swelling seemed to still be there." Id. In November 2013, Mr. Williams received follow-up medical treatment at two different medical centers in the State of Washington. Id. at 31-32. On November 3, 2013, Mr. Williams' chief complaints were "Foot Swelling" and "Dental Pain" during his visit at the first medical center. Pl.'s Ex. B, ECF No. 46-4 at 13 (). The physicians advised him that surgery might be necessary. Pl.'s Ex. G, ECF No. 44-6 at 68.
On the same day, Mr. Williams was transferred to the second medical center. Id. There, Mr. Williams was diagnosed with "Left leg cellulitis" and "NECROTIZING FASCIITIS" on November 4, 2013. Defs.' Ex. D, ECF No. 44-2 at 40.4 Under the "Physical Exam" section in the doctor's notes, it contains the following "Musculoskeletal" description:
left lower leg with erythema, bullae below the knee to the foot, leg is swollen and edematous compared to right, popped blisters contained clear yellowish/orange fluid, leg superior to knee is normal in caliber, leg is nontender, normal sensation, ROM is limited by swelling but able to move toes and foot at the ankle.
Id. at 41. Mr. Williams underwent emergency surgery for his skin-related infections, and he spent approximately ten days in the hospital. Pl.'s Dep. Tr., Pl.'s Ex. I, ECF No. 46-4 at 156.
After his condition improved, Mr. Williams was discharged from the second medical center on or about November 14, 2013. Id.
Based on these events, Mr. Williams submitted an administrative claim—the Standard Form 95—to the VA's Office of Regional Counsel in October 2015, FAC, ECF No. 48 at 2 ¶ 7, claiming that NP McGarrah negligently "failed to screen or test for the bacterial infection" during his October 30, 2013 visit to the VAMC, Defs.' Ex. E, ECF No. 44-2 at 45 (Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death). On October 16, 2016, Mr. Williams filed the instant action against the VA. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. On February 2, 2018, the Court granted over the VA's objection Mr. Williams' motion to file an amended complaint to add the United States of America as a defendant. Min. Entry of Feb. 2, 2018. Mr. Williams asserts two counts against the Defendants under the FTCA: (1) negligence ("Count I"), FAC, ECF No. 48 at 3 ¶¶ 17-19, 4 ¶¶ 20-26, 5 ¶¶ 27-32, 6 ¶¶ 33-38, 7 ¶¶ 39-41; and (2) negligent supervision ("Count II"), id. at 7 ¶¶ 42-45, 8 ¶¶ 46-48. Mr. Williams seeks, among other things, an award of $1,750,000.00. Id. at 10.
After the close of discovery on March 13, 2019, Min. Order of Jan. 31, 2019, the Defendants moved for summary judgment and the preclusion of Mr. Williams' proposed medical expert opinions, see, e.g., Defs.' Mot. to Preclude Expert Op. & ForSumm. J. ( ), ECF No. 44 at 1-2; Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. ( ), ECF No. 44-1 at 1-31. Mr. Williams filed his opposition brief, see Pl.'s Opp'n, ECF No. 46 at 1-2; see also Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. ("Pl.'s Mem."), ECF No. 46-1 at 1-30, and the Defendants filed their reply brief, see Defs.' Reply, ECF No. 47 at 1-14. The motion is ripe and ready for the Court's adjudication.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if 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). The moving party must identify "those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). To defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party must demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 324. A material fact is one that is capable of affecting the outcome of the litigation. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine dispute is one where "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."Id. "The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Id. at 255.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial