United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE REGARDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Daniel
D. Domenico, United States District Judge
Plaintiff,
a pretrial detainee, has permanent vision loss in his right
eye, which he alleges is the result of negligence and
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by
healthcare providers at the Montrose County Detention Center
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants filed
motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Docs. 45,
46.) Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher recommended that
the motions be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 77.)
Before the Court are the timely, and only, objections to the
recommendation, filed by Defendants Correct Care Solutions,
LLC and Correctional Healthcare Companies, LLC (“Entity
Defendants”). (Doc. 79.) For the following reasons, the
Court ADPOTS IN PART the recommendation and
SUSTAINS the objections.
I.
PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
The
following allegations are taken from Mr. Hernandez's
Amended Complaint (Doc. 41) and are treated as true for
purposes of assessing the motions to dismiss. See Wilson
v. Montano, 715 F.3d 847, 850 n.1 (10th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff
Alvaro Hernandez was a pretrial detainee housed at the
Montrose County Detention Center from September 12, 2016 to
March 1, 2017. Entity Defendants are limited liability
companies that contract with Montrose County to provide
medical services to detainees at the detention center.
Defendants Kimberly Spangrude, Lisa Culver-Barrientos,
Danielle Recchia, and Catherin Morin (collectively,
“Individual Defendants”) are alleged to be nurses
at the detention center and employed by Entity Defendants.
(Doc. 41, at 4-5.)
On
September 12, 2016, Mr. Hernandez suffered a traumatic brain
injury and was admitted to the hospital. When he received
medical clearance, he was booked into to the detention
center. On September 17, he returned to the hospital, where
he was diagnosed with corneal abrasion and broken blood
vessel in his right eye. He was advised to follow up with a
healthcare provider if he did not improve. From September 17
to 20, Mr. Hernandez complained of pain, dizziness, vomiting,
blurred vision, and a bloodshot right eye. Nurses at the
detention center provided ibuprofen, an ice pack, and told
him to “contact medical” if his symptoms
worsened. By November 1, a nurse noted that his eye was still
red, infected and torn, and his vision was still blurred.
As
arranged by detention center nurses, Mr. Hernandez saw
several outside medical providers. On November 4, he visited
the San Juan Eye Center. There, Dr. Jared Hadlock diagnosed
him with a traumatic cataract of the right eye and referred
him for surgery. From November 15 to 18, Mr. Hernandez
continued to experience discomfort. He then saw Dr. Michael
Waggoner of ICON Eye Care, who prescribed him multiple
medications to relieve pressure. A scan indicated no retinal
detachment or hemorrhage. Dr. Waggoner suggested Mr.
Hernandez be seen by a retinal specialist as soon as
possible. He advised that Mr. Hernandez was at risk for
permanent optic nerve damage and blindness. On November 29, a
nurse at the detention center noted that Mr. Hernandez
continued to have a large cataract on his right eye, but she
said Defendants would not be making a referral to a
specialist for cataract surgery. The nurse told him he would
need to follow up with a primary care provider. Mr. Hernandez
alleges “[u]pon information and belief, the final
decision to decline to refer [him] to a specialist was made
by an Unknown Health Services Administrator employed by
[Defendants].” On November 30, Dr. James Fox treated
Mr. Hernandez for glaucoma and advised that he likely had
permanent optic nerve damage. On January 5, 2017, Dr. Fox
noted that the glaucoma was resolved, as well as a papillary
blockage, but also identified the possibility of a detached
retina. He referred Mr. Hernandez to a Dr. Waterhouse at the
retinal center. One of Defendants' referral request
forms, dated January 24, indicates “possible retinal
detachment” and that Mr. Hernandez was financially
liable for these services. On January 27, Dr. Waterhouse
confirmed the detached retina and ordered surgery, which he
performed on February 22. On March 14, Dr. Waterhouse noted
extremely limited vision (hand motions only) in Mr.
Hernandez's right eye. There was no improvement by April
3. Handwritten notes from nurses at the detention center
reflect Mr. Hernandez's worsening symptoms during his
time in custody.
Mr.
Hernandez alleges that Entity Defendants, a “national
company with a shameful history of failing to provide
constitutionally adequate medical care, ” have an
“informal, unwritten custom and practice of deliberate
indifference to inmates' serious medical needs” and
“fail[] to adequately train employees in meeting the
serious medical need of inmates” to “avoid the
added expense of providing such care.”
II.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On
October 2, 2018, Mr. Hernandez filed this case. On March 5,
he filed the Amended Complaint, which contains two causes of
actions against all Defendants: (1) deliberate indifference
to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) medical
negligence. Defendants moved to dismiss, with prejudice.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court referred the
motions to the magistrate judge for a recommendation.
Magistrate
Judge Gallagher, in a thorough opinion, first recommended
that the Court dismiss the Individual Defendants. He
evaluated Mr. Hernandez's Amended Complaint and
determined that the allegations against the nurses were
“extremely limited” and did not establish that
any of them knew of, and disregarded, an excessive risk to
Mr. Hernandez's health and safety. He concluded that Mr.
Hernandez failed to state a claim against them.
But the
magistrate judge also recommended that the motions be denied
with respect to the entity Defendants. (See Doc. 77,
at 20-23.) He found that Mr. Hernandez had sufficiently
alleged these entities' (1) vicarious liability for
negligent acts and omissions and (2) failures in training,
policies, and practices. On the constitutional claims, he was
impressed by “alleged consistent failure to timely act
across a scope of medical issues” and a “track
record of providing deficient medical care at detention
facilities” of which Entity Defendants should be aware.
III.
OBJECTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must
contain a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
“[D]etailed factual allegations” are not
required, Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007), but the Rule calls for sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “[A]
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Id. at 555. “A claim has
facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 665 (2009). “The degree of
specificity necessary to establish plausibility and fair
notice, and therefore the need to include sufficient factual
allegations, depends on context.” Robbins v.
Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1248 (10th Cir. 2008).
...