Williams v. United States
| Decision Date | 14 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 4:19-cv-1696-KOB |
| Parties | ORLANDO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
This matter comes before the court on Defendant United States' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 65). Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Orlando Williams claims the United States acting through its agency the Veteran's Administration committed medical malpractice under the Alabama Medical Liability Act. See Ala. Code § 6-5-548. Mr Williams brings his medical malpractice claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which permits a plaintiff to sue the United States “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2674.
Specifically Mr. Williams claims that several health care providers at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Birmingham, Alabama conducted MRI exams in 2011 and 2017 and then negligently failed to appropriately treat a spinal growth that was visible on the MRIs. This failure, he claims, caused him pain and suffering, negatively impacted his career, and caused him other damages.
Defendant has moved for summary judgment (doc. 65), and Mr. Williams responded (doc. 72).[1] After Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment, Mr. Williams moved the court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) to reconsider its prior ruling rejecting his second request to extend the expert disclosure deadline. (Doc. 73). Defendant responded to the motion to reconsider. (Doc. 75).
As explained below, the court will grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment and deny Mr. Williams's motion to reconsider. The court will address the motion to reconsider first, before analyzing Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The court originally required Mr. Williams to disclose his expert witnesses no later than November 15, 2021. (Doc. 46 at 2). Before November 15, Mr. Williams moved the court to extend the expert disclosure deadline. (Doc. 60). That motion did not explain the reasons for requesting the extension, but it stated that he would “submit more information to the court by November 24, 2021.” (Doc. 60 at 8).
The court granted that motion, extending Williams's expert disclosure deadline to January 14, 2022. (Doc. 61). Williams never submitted additional information.
Instead, Mr. Williams moved the court to extend the expert disclosure deadline again on January 7, 2022. (Doc. 62). The text of that motion was virtually identical to the text of Mr. Williams's prior motion for an extension; neither motion explained the reasons for Mr. Williams's delay in disclosing an expert witness or his progress toward retaining one. So, the court denied Mr. Williams's second motion for an extension on January 10, 2022. (Doc. 63). Mr. Williams disclosed no witness before the January 14 deadline.
On February 15, 2022-after Defendant declared its expert witness and after Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment-Mr. Williams moved the court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) to reconsider its denial of his second request for an extension for expert disclosure in January 2022. (Doc. 73 at 5). Mr. Williams claims that he paid an expert witness on January 12, 2022. He provides a redacted receipt from January 12, purportedly showing that he paid a radiologist $1, 525.00. (Doc. 73-1). And he provides an invoice for $1, 525 from the radiology expert, dated October 20, 2021. (Doc. 73-2). He argues that this information constitutes “newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact, ” warranting reconsideration of the court's prior ruling. (Doc. 73 at 5) (quoting Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)). The court disagrees.
Parties “cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005).
Mr. Williams's receipt showing that he paid an expert witness on January 12, 2022 while failing to disclose that witness before the January 14 deadline does not constitute “newly discovered evidence.” It merely shows his failure to timely retain an expert and comply with the final expert disclosure deadline the court ordered in November 2021.[2] (Doc. 61).
Also, Mr. Williams received an invoice from his purported radiology expert on October 20, 2021-three months before his final expert disclosure deadline on January 14 and the court's denial of his second motion for an extension on January 10. Yet, neither of Mr. Williams's motions for an extension mentioned the expert or the October 2021 invoice. If Mr. Williams possessed that invoice in October 2021 and knew the identity of his purported radiology expert, then that information constitutes evidence “that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment” in January 2022. See Michael Linet, Inc., 408 F.3d at 763. So Mr. Williams fails to present newly discovered evidence justifying reconsideration.
Nor does the court find a “manifest error of law or fact” based on Mr. Williams's submissions. Mr. Williams identifies no erroneous ruling of fact in denying his second motion for an extension. Rather, Mr. Williams failed to alert Defendant and the court to the existence of his radiology expert and the October 2021 invoice. He also failed to take efforts to produce the required report from that expert. And he waited to disclose the information and invoice from his expert until after the Defendant had disclosed its medical expert and filed for summary judgment. The court finds no error of law or fact in its prior ruling, given the dearth of information Mr. Williams provided in January 2022.
So the court will DENY Mr. Williams's motion to reconsider its denial of his second request for an extension of the expert disclosure deadline. The court now turns to Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Mr. Williams served in the United States Army from 2000 to 2003, including a tour in Iraq. After his military service, Mr. Williams served as a correctional officer with the Alabama Department of Corrections for just over six years, until 2011.
On May 12, 2011, Mr. Williams went to the VA Hospital in Birmingham for an assessment of pain in his left shoulder and neck. After an MRI examination, Mr. Williams's examining physician found his spinal cord to be “normal” and found “no evidence of intra medullary abnormal signal intensities, tumor or syrinx.” (Doc. 32 at 15) (emphasis added).[3]
Mr. Williams continued to suffer from back pain, and he returned to the VA hospital as a walk-in patient on September 29, 2017. The VA medical records state that Mr. Williams was having “sharp pain” near several discs in his spine. (Doc. 66-1 at 3). The physician's notes continue: (Id.). That same day, the physician ordered an MRI of Mr. Williams's thoracic spine. (Id. at 4). The notes reflect that Mr. Williams left the hospital (Id. at 5).
After that visit, Mr. Williams underwent his second MRI on October 10, 2017 at the VA hospital. The report of that MRI examination found: (Doc. 66-1 at 7). The report found a “T2 hyperintense and T1 iso/hyperintense lesion” in one part of the spine but concluded, “these are likely not clinically significant.” (Id.). The report also indicates that the examiner reached the conclusions after conducting a “comparison” between the results of the October 2017 MRI and the results of the May 2011 MRI. (Id. at 6). The report does not identify a malignant or harmful tumor.
Mr. Williams then requested that a neurologist offer a second opinion as to the MRI images. On October 13, 2017, the neurologist provided a written opinion, which states:
I have reviewed the images. Enhancing lesion in T4 vertebral body. Official read by neuroradiology is likely hemangioma. These are benign lesions typically located in the thoracic spine. They are most commonly incidental findings and usually asymptomatic. Symptomatic cases represent approximately less than 1% of cases. These lesions can cause pain noted with increase in activity or if they cause collapse of vertebra or encroach on the neural canal which is not seen on imaging in this case. Treatment is typically not needed and the report of pt remaining neurologically intact is reassuring. If exam changes would refer him for urgent workup but do not expect this to be the case.
Mr. Williams's complaint alleges that his treating physicians as the VA negligently failed to treat a spinal growth that was visible on the MRIs from May 2011 and October 2017. (Doc. 32 at 20 et seq.). He claims that the VA physicians' conduct breached the appropriate standard of medical care under the Alabama Medical Liability Act.
As explained above, Mr. Williams failed to timely disclose an expert to testify about his injuries and the appropriate standard of care. This failure dooms Mr. Williams claim, as explained below. Even so, Defendant supports its motion for summary judgment with the expert report of Dr. Gordon Sze MD. (Doc. 66-2). Dr. Sze is Professor of Radiology and Chief of Neurology at Yale University School of Medicine. (Id. at 5). He has served as president of national...
To continue reading
Request your trial