Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hernandez v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC

United States District Court, D. Colorado

July 21, 2019

ALVARO HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC; CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, LLC. d/b/a “CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC.”; NURSE KIMBERLY SPANGRUDE, FNP-C, in her individual capacity; NURSE LISA CULVER-BARRIENTOS, in her individual capacity; NURSE DANIELLE RECCHIA, in her individual capacity; NURSE CATHERINE MORIN, LPN, in her individual capacity; UNK Health Services Administrator for CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, in his/her individual capacity, Defendants.

          I. RECOMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS' (CCS DEFENDANTS) MOTION TO DISMISS AND II. RECOMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANT NURSE SPANGRUDE'S MOTION TO DISMISS

          Gordon P. Gallagher, United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Correct Care Solutions (CCS), Correctional Healthcare Companies (CHC), Nurse Culver-Barrientos, Nurse Recchia, and Nurse Morin's (Collectively the CCS Defendants) motion to dismiss (ECF # 45)[1], Plaintiff's response (ECF# 52), and Defendants' reply (ECF #57). The motion has been referred to this Magistrate Judge for recommendation (Court entry dated June 3, 2019 with no ECF #).[2] The Court has reviewed the pending motion, response, and all attachments. The Court has also considered the entire case file, the applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises. This Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the motion be GRANTED in-part and DENIED in-part as specifically set forth below.

         This matter also comes before the Court on Defendant Nurse Spangrude's motion to dismiss (ECF # 47), Plaintiff's response (ECF# 51), and Defendant Nurse Spangrude's reply (ECF #58). The motion has been referred to this Magistrate Judge for recommendation (Court entry dated June 3, 2019 with no ECF #).[3] The Court has reviewed the pending motion, response, and all attachments. The Court has also considered the entire case file, the applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises. This Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the motion be GRANTED.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         This matter proceeds on Plaintiffs' amended complaint (ECF #41). Therein, Plaintiff claims deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (p. 16) and medical negligence (p. 17). Accepting Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, Plaintiff avers the following, all from the amended complaint (ECF #41). Each Nurse Defendant is being sued in her individual capacity (pp. 4-5).

         Plaintiff was an inmate at the Montrose County Detention Facility (MCDF) (p. 1). Plaintiff had clearly documented injuries to his head and right eye (p. 1). Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee from September 12, 2016 until March 1, 2017 (pp. 1-2). The following facts are set forth by Plaintiff as to the course of his treatment from the amended complaint (ECF #41, pp. 5-10, paragraphs. As numbered infra):

25. On September 12, 2016, Alvaro Hernandez suffered a traumatic brain injury.
26. Mr. Hernandez was admitted to the Montrose Memorial Hospital on September 12, 2016.
27. Mr. Hernandez was in custody at the time he was admitted to the Montrose Memorial Hospital on September 12, 2016.
28. On September 12, 2016, Mr. Hernandez was booked into the MCDF after medical clearance by Montrose Memorial Hospital.
29. On September 17, 2016, Mr. Hernandez returned to the Montrose Memorial Hospital and was diagnosed with corneal abrasion, and a subconjunctival hemorrhage (broken blood vessel) of the right eye.
30. On September 17, 2016, Mr. Hernandez was advised to follow up with a healthcare provider if not better.
31. On September 17, 2016, Defendant Nurse Catherine Morin noted Mr. Hernandez's return to the jail from the Montrose Memorial Hospital.
32. On September 17, 2016, Defendant Nurse Catherine Morin noted “IM reports vision blurred”.
33. On September 18, 2016, Mr. Hernandez was seen by Defendant Nurse Catherine Morin in response to “continued complaints” of blurred vision in his eye.
34. On September 18, 2016, Defendant Nurse Catherine Morin instructed Mr. Hernandez to contact medical if symptoms worsen.
35. On September 20, 2016, Nurse Defendant Kimberly Spangrude noted Mr. Hernandez had head pain and was prescribed ibuprofen and an ice pack.
36. On September 20, 2016, Nurse Spangrude noted Mr. Hernandez continued to complain of pain in head, dizziness, vomiting, and bloodshot right eye.
37. Upon information and belief, Physician's Orders from November 17, 2016, through at least November 30, 2016, reflect hand-written signatures indicating review by Defendant Nurse Kimberly Spangrude, Catherine Morin, Danielle Recchia and Lisa Culver-Barrientos.
38. On November 1, 2016, Nurse Spangrude noted no resolution of redness of right eye, blurred vision, and constant tearing.
39. On November 1, 2016, Nurse Spangrude noted that right eye was red, conjunctiva infected, sclera infected and that while antibiotics had been used “as instructed, ” “we considered possibility of irritation to eye…so we stopped them for one week but no change.” 40. Nurse Spangrude further noted right eye injury-chronic and that the eye was tearing copiously.
41. On November 3, 2016, Nurse Spangrude arranged a visit to the San Juan Eye Center for November 4, 2016.
42. On November 4, 2016, Mr. Hernandez was seen at the San Juan Eye Center for “eye irritation” where patient complained of gradual vision loss beginning one week after the initial injury of September 12, 2016.
43. On November 4, 2016, Dr. Jared Hadlock examined Mr. Hernandez noting a dense cataract but normal retina.
44. On November 4, 2016, Mr. Hernandez was diagnosed by Dr. Jared Hadlock with a traumatic cataract of the right eye and referred for cataract surgery.
45. Dr. Hadlock's referral for cataract surgery appears on a CHC Defendant form commonly used at the MCDF.
46. Upon information and belief, Nurse Defendants Kimberly Spangrude, Catherine Morin, Danielle Recchia and Lisa Culver-Barrientos were personally aware of Dr. Hadlock's diagnosis of a traumatic cataract in Mr. Hernandez's right eye and subsequent referral for surgery.
47. On November 15, 2016, Mr. Hernandez indicated further discomfort in the right eye, pain, swelling, and blurred vision.
48. On November 15, 2016, Mr. Hernandez was diagnosed with a hyper mature cataract with angle closure and intraocular pressure of the right eye.
49. On November 17, 2016, Mr. Hernandez was seen by Dr. Michael Waggoner of ICON Eye Care, who prescribed him with multiple medications intended to relieve pressure within the eye.
50. On November 17, 2016, a scan of Mr. Hernandez's right eye indicated an absence of retinal detachment or hemorrhage.
51. On November 18, 2016, Nurse Defendant, Danielle Recchia, noted that they had received a call from Dr. Waggoner's office, who highly suggested that Mr. Hernandez be seen by a retinal specialist as soon as possible.
52. Nurse Defendant Danielle Recchia was advised by a treating physician (Ophthalmologist) that Mr. Hernandez's medical condition required the urgent attention of a retinal specialist.
53. Mr. Hernandez was not seen by a retinal specialist until January 27, 2017, when he met with Dr. Waterhouse.
54. On November 21, 2016, Dr. Waggoner advised that Mr. Hernandez was at risk for permanent optic nerve damage and blindness and would require surgery for glaucoma.
55. On November 29, 2016, CHC Defendant Nurse Kimberly Spangrude noted that Mr. Hernandez continued to have a large cataract on his right eye and was being treated for acute closed angle glaucoma.
56. On November 29, 2016, Nurse Spangrude advised that they would not be making a referral to a specialist for cataract surgery and that Mr. Hernandez would need to follow up ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.