Wright v. Cnty. of Franklin

• Decision Date: 26 July 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:10–cv–715.
• Citation: 881 F.Supp.2d 887
• Parties: Harry W. WRIGHT, Jr., Plaintiff, v. The COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, OHIO, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

881 F.Supp.2d 887

Harry W. WRIGHT, Jr., Plaintiff,

v.The COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, OHIO, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:10–cv–715.

United States District Court,

S.D. Ohio,

Eastern Division.

July 26, 2012.

Jonathan T. Tyack, Ryan Lee Thomas, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff.

Adam W. Martin, John V. Jackson, II, Sutter O'Connell & Farchione Co., LPA, Cleveland, OH, Mary Jane Martin, Columbus, OH, Paul J. Pusateri, Thomas Ray Himmelspach, Milligan Pusateri Co., LPA, Canton, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the following filings—

(1) The motion for summary judgment of Defendants Samantha Brammer and Laura Foreman (ECF No. 99), Plaintiff Harry W. Wright, Jr.'s memorandum contra (ECF No. 103), and Brammer's and Foreman's reply brief in support of summary judgment (ECF No. 105); and (2) The separate motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Franklin County, Ohio, Franklin County Sheriff Zach Scott, James Karnes, Chief Deputy Mark Barrett, Correctional Care Plus, LLC, James Bloomfield LPN, Mohammed Abib, M.D., and Phillip Bialecki, M.D. (ECF No. 100), the “supplement” to these Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 101), Plaintiff's memorandum contra (ECF No. 104), and Defendants' reply in support of summary judgment (ECF No. 109).

For the reasons set forth in more detail below, both summary judgment motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist for trial on the Plaintiff's claims for violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I of the Amended Complaint) and for punitive damages as against Defendants Brammer, Foreman, Bloomfield, Dr. Abib, and Dr. Bialecki. The Court also finds that genuine issues of material fact remain for trial on Plaintiff's state-law claim for gross negligence (Count II of the Amended Complaint) against Defendants Brammer, Foreman, Dr. Abib, Dr. Bialecki, and Correctional Care Plus LLC.

I. Factual Background

Three years ago, Plaintiff Harry W. Wright, Jr., was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee at the Franklin County Correctional Center (“FCCC”). Upon his admission to the facility on July 23, 2009, Plaintiff underwent a routine medical intake screening. During that screening, Plaintiff informed Carolann Huberston, a licensed nurse practitioner (“LPN”), that he was in pain and had been “spitting up blood” for the last three days. The intake screening form completed by Huberston suggests that she did not obtain any other medical information from Plaintiff. The form noted that Plaintiff would be assigned to the “General Population” at FCCC. On a separate form, however, Huberston indicated that Plaintiff would be a direct transfer to “medical.” Consistent with that notation, Plaintiff was moved from the FCCC facility in downtown Columbus (where the intake was performed) to the FCCC's Jackson Pike facility; Plaintiff's understanding was that he was transferred to the Jackson Pike facility because the “medical ward” was located there. (Wright Dep. 22, ECF No. 99–1.)

Plaintiff was assigned to the jail's general population and placed on “nursing sick call” for follow up regarding the conditions he reported to Nurse Hubertson. During Plaintiff's first five days of incarceration, he complained on multiple occasions to the deputy on duty that he was in pain. But it was not until July 28, 2009, five days after his intake screening at the FCCC, that Plaintiff was taken to the medical ward at the jail. ( Id. at 27.) According to Plaintiff, he was taken to the medical ward on that day after other inmates were “banging on the door” of their cell to get the deputy's attention because Plaintiff was “spitting up blood in the toilet” and could not hold any food down. ( Id.)

The nurse who saw Plaintiff on July 28, 2009, documented the visit. On the progress notes, the nurse indicated that a urine test revealed the presence of protein and a trace amount of blood. (Pl.'s Memo. Contra to Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 9.) The nurse referred Plaintiff to a physician, Defendant Dr. Bialecki. Dr. Bialecki was employed by Defendant Correctional Care Plus, LLC, which provided physicians to the FCCC under a contract with Franklin County. Dr. Bialecki examined Plaintiff on July 29, 2009.

Dr. Bialecki documented on the progress notes that Plaintiff reported experiencing right-side abdominal and chest pain for the past 10 days. ( Id.) Based on his examination, Dr. Bialecki suspected that Plaintiff had musculoskeletal issues and ordered x-rays of Plaintiff's abdomen and chest. (Bialecki Dep. 68, ECF No. 99–4.) Dr. Bialecki also ordered blood work to be done and prescribed Vicodin (pain medication) and Naprosyn (anti-inflammatory and pain medication) for Plaintiff. ( Id. at 68–69.) Dr. Bialecki did not address the urinary findings documented by the nurse ( i.e., blood in the urine).

The day after Dr. Bialecki's examination, Plaintiff underwent the ordered laboratory tests and x-rays. The blood tests revealed an elevated white blood cell count and elevated liver enzyme values. (Pl.'s Memo. Contra Ex. 13.) The x-ray report regarding Plaintiff's abdomen stated that there was “no definite evidence of bowel obstruction” but also stated, “Clinical correlation is requested.” ( Id., Ex. 11.) Both Plaintiff's and Defendants' experts testified that “clinical correlation is requested” means, in this instance, that the radiologist could not draw a diagnostic conclusion as to whether Plaintiff suffered from a bowel obstruction. Rather, it was up to the referring physician to exercise clinical judgment to determine whether an obstruction or some other medical problem existed. (Hookman Dep. 84, ECF No. 102–1; Schirmer Dep. 75, ECF No. 108.) Reaching that judgment could include reference to medical history, further examination, or further testing. (Hookman Dep. 84; Bialecki Dep. 83–84, ECF No. 99–4.) In this instance, Dr. Bialecki did not order any follow up with regard to Plaintiff's condition. (Bialecki Dep. 88.)

On August 3, 2009, nearly one week after seeing Dr. Bialecki, Plaintiff submitted a Health Services Request to a nurse. (Wright Dep. 34, ECF No. 99–1.) In the request, Plaintiff again complained of “severe pain in my right side and chest” and asked for someone to “please help me and tell me what's wrong with me.” (Pl.'s Memo. Contra Ex. 7, ECF No. 104–1 at 11.) Defendant James Bloomfield, LPN, received Plaintiff's Health Services Request the next day. Nurse Bloomfield testified that he spoke with Plaintiff at “around midnight” on the night of August 3/early morning of August 4, 2009, at the request of a deputy. (Bloomfield Dep. 21, ECF No. 100–6.) Nurse Bloomfield noted that Plaintiff was complaining of chronic pain in his right side and that medication was not alleviating Plaintiff's pain. (Pl.'s Memo. Contra Ex. 7, ECF No. 104–1 at 11.) Nurse Bloomfield scheduled Plaintiff for a doctor sick call to take place later on August 4, 2009. Nurse Bloomfield did not, however, document any further history related to Plaintiff's pain, obtain Plaintiff's vital signs, or otherwise examine Plaintiff. (Bloomfield Dep. 22.) Nor did Nurse Bloomfield speak to deputies familiar with Plaintiff about Plaintiff's condition. ( Id. at 25.) According to Nurse Bloomfield, Plaintiff “seemed fine” when he talked to Bloomfield. ( Id. at 24.)

Defendant Mohammad Abib, M.D., saw Plaintiff on August 4, 2009. Dr. Abib noted that Plaintiff “still” had “persistent” abdominal pain, but did not document any further history of Plaintiff's pain or obtain any vital signs. (Pl.'s Memo. Contra Ex. 9, ECF No. 104–1 at 14.) Nor did Dr. Abib document the presence, absence, or quality of any bowel sounds. According to Plaintiff's expert, Perry Hookman M.D., “[a]ny proper abdominal exam must include a determination of bowel sounds” because the absence of any bowel sounds “could indicate serious medical problems, including an obstructed bowel or a serious infection.” (Dr. Hookman Report 5, ECF No. 102–8.) Dr. Abib also did not address the elevated white blood cell counts that were indicated on Plaintiff's lab report from a few days earlier, findings that are commonly associated with acute bacterial infections. (Dr. Goldenson Report 5, ECF No. 102–16.)

Dr. Abib diagnosed Plaintiff with hepatitis, re-prescribed Naprosyn, and noted “pain control” as the treatment plan. (Pl.'s Memo. Contra Ex. 9, ECF No. 104–1 at 14.) Dr. Abib testified that the only thing “impressive” to him about Plaintiff's lab reports were the liver enzymes, which suggested hepatitis and would be consistent with the pain Plaintiff was experiencing in the right upper quadrant of his abdomen. (Dr. Abib Dep. 34, ECF No. 109–3.) Dr. Abib also observed that Plaintiff's abdominal pain did not appear to be “acute” based on his examination. ( Id. at 34–35.) Dr. Abib further testified that he was unaware that Plaintiff had complained of abdominal pain since his arrival at FCCC on July 23, 2009; Dr. Abib knew only that Plaintiff had seen Dr. Bialecki about the same symptoms on July 29, 2009, six days before Dr. Abib examined Plaintiff. ( Id. at 35.)

On August 9, 2009, five days after Dr. Abib examined Plaintiff and 17 days after Plaintiff reported abdominal pain during his intake screening, an FCCC deputy brought Plaintiff to the medical ward at 5:30 a.m. after Plaintiff complained of having vomited bright red blood. According to Plaintiff, one or more deputies at the jail saw him vomiting the blood. (Wright Dep. 41–42, ECF No. 99–1.) Upon Plaintiff's arrival at the medical ward, Defendant Samantha Brammer, LPN, placed Plaintiff in a holding cell for observation. Plaintiff informed Brammer that he usually vomited only once in the mornings; it is unclear from the progress notes whether this meant (1) that Plaintiff vomited only once a day and did so in the morning or (2) that he vomited multiple times daily but usually only once in the morning. Regardless, at approximately 6:00 a.m.,...