Aul v. Correct Care Sols.

JESSE EARL AUL, Plaintiff, v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 3:18-CV-02142

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

May 7, 2021

Judge Jennifer P. Wilson

MEMORANDUM

This case is a prisoner civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Jesse Earl Aul, a former state inmate, concerning his alleged denial of medical care after suffering a stroke while incarcerated. (Doc. 45.) Employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") and Correct Care Solutions, LLC ("CCS") are named as Defendants. The DOC Defendants are Nurse Supervisors Elaine Coffman, R.N. and Lisa Campbell, R.N., as well as Julie Chamberlain, L.P.N. The "Medical Defendants" are CCS, Dr. Vernon Preston, and Physician Assistant ("PA") Patrick Nagle. Presently before the court are the motions to dismiss the amended complaint that have been filed by both groups of Defendants. (Docs. 46, 47.) For the reasons that follow, the amended complaint will be dismissed in its entirety without leave to amend.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jesse Earl Aul is a former state inmate who initiated this action on his own behalf concerning his medical care while housed at the Rockview State Correctional Institution ("SCI-Rockview"). This matter proceeds on the counseled amended complaint. (Doc. 45.)

A. Factual Allegations

For the purpose of addressing the motions to dismiss, the court will take the following allegations set forth in the amended complaint as true.¹ On December 18, 2017, while housed at SCI-Rockview, Jessie Earl Aul ("Plaintiff" or "Aul") suddenly lost vision and suffered a debilitating headache while weightlifting. (Doc. 45, ¶ 11.) Aul reported to the medical unit where Nurse Chamberlain saw him. She assessed him as suffering from "'ocular strain' and to take Ibuprofen and 'take it easy.' No other tests were done by L.P.N. Chamberlain." (Id.) Although 85% of Aul's vision returned, he continued to suffer from headaches that were not relieved by Ibuprofen. Aul "took it easy" for three days before returning to the weight room. Upon engaging in "light exercise," Aul again suddenly lost his vision and had a tremendous headache. (Id., ¶ 12.) Believing he had ocular strain, Aul continued to take Ibuprofen and rest. Later that day when showering, he losthis vision again. (Id., ¶ 13.) Aul rested for three more days and continued to take Ibuprofen. (Id.)

On December 24, 2017,² Aul again tried to exercise, but lost his vision and "was referred to 'medical' again." (Id.) Dr. Preston saw Aul and sent him to the Mount Nittany Medical Center for further evaluation. (Id., ¶ 14.) Extensive testing revealed that Aul had suffered a stroke. Before releasing Aul back to SCI-Rockview, the Mount Nittany Medical Center treating physician issued him a prescription. (Id.) Upon his arrival at SCI-Rockview, Dr. Preston changed that prescription. (Id., ¶16.)

On December 25, 2017, Dr. Christina Doll, a non-defendant, gave Aul a one-day supply of medication. (Id., ¶ 17.) On January 12, 2018, PA Nagle saw Aul. Aul complained of "serious side effects from the medication, including arthritic pain and an inability to concentrate." (Id., ¶ 18.) PA Nagle advised he had just suffered a stroke and that Dr. Preston had not scheduled a follow-up visit for him at the Mount Nittany Medical Center. (Id.)

On January 15, 2018, Aul requested a refill of his medication. It was not honored until February 19, 2018. He claims he regularly had difficulty obtaining his medication. (Id., ¶ 19.)

On January 29, 2018, Dr. Preston advised Aul that he would schedule a CT scan for him "to see how effective the medication was." (Id., ¶ 20.) When Aul complained of spasms, arthritis in his hands, and the inability to concentrate, Dr. Preston advised that his medication may need to be changed. However, no CT scan or medication adjustment was made. (Id., ¶ 20.) On March 12, 2018, Dr. Preston prescribed an additional prescription for Aul after he registered complaints of the side effects of his medication. (Id., ¶ 21.)

Aul states three claims in his counseled amended complaint. First, he claims that Nurse Chamberlain was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition after she misdiagnosed his stroke on December 18, 2017. (Id., ¶¶ 24-28, Count I.) Second, Aul asserts a direct liability negligence claim against all Defendants. Aul claims the Defendants "had a duty to provide [him] adequate healthcare" and they breached that duty "by not diagnosing [his] stroke, and not taking proper care of him following the stroke." (Id., ¶¶ 29-31, Count II.) Specifically, he alleges Nurse Chamberlain "failed to accurately diagnosis [his] stroke." (Id., ¶ 31a.) Dr. Preston was negligent in failing "to provide [him] adequate care of a stroke victim until days later" and by changing the prescriptionissued by the outside physician "to the detriment of the plaintiff." (Id., ¶ 31b-c.) Both Dr. Preston and PA Nagle failed to order "further testing or other remedies for the side effects of the medication" as well as failing to address "any medical needs of a stroke victim, to include forgetting to schedule tests and provide medication." (Id., ¶ 31d-e.) Aul's final claim is based on respondeat superior, or vicarious liability. (Id., ¶¶ 33-39, Count III.) Aul states that as "CCS is the employer of the other defendants, they are responsible to make sure employees are property (sic) trained to recognize stroke and other inmate maladies, and they failed to do so." (Id., ¶ 36.) Dr. Preston is alleged to supervise PA Nagle and Nursing Supervisor Elaine Coffman. (Id., ¶ 37.) Nursing Supervisor Elaine Coffman is alleged to be the supervisor of Lisa Campbell and Nurse Chamberlain. (Id., ¶ 38.) Aul claims CCS and Dr. Preston are liable for Nurse Chamberlain's failure "to property (sic) diagnose stroke in Plaintiff and giving him provably false information of 'ocular strain.'" (Id., ¶ 39.) Nurses Campbell and Coffman, "who supervised Chamberlain are vicariously liable for said failure to accurately diagnose a stroke, causing delay and failure to provide follow-up care." (Id.) As relief, Aul seeks actual and punitive monetary damages.

B. Procedural History

On October 31, 2018, Aul initiated this action asserting an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Nurse Chamberlain and statemedical negligence claims against all Defendants.³ He was self-represented at the time. (Doc. 1.) Aul simultaneously filed a memorandum and documents in support of his complaint. (Doc. 4.) After paying the filing fee in this matter, the complaint was served on Defendants. (Doc. 12.) Aul filed Certificates of Merit ("COM") as to all Defendants. His COM regarding the Medical Defendants indicates that expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for the prosecution of his state negligence claims against them. (Doc. 20.) Aul's COMs as to the DOC Defendants are similarly worded. Compare Docs. 20, 32-34. Aul's COMs indicated he was only pursuing direct liability claims against the Defendants. (Id.)

Both sets of Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. (Docs. 23, 26.) On October 26, 2020, the court dismissed, without prejudice, Aul's Eighth Amendment claim against Nurse Chamberlain after finding he failed to sufficiently plead that she knew of and disregarded an excessive or substantial risk of harm to his health or safety on December 18, 2017. (Doc. 39, p. 14.)⁴ The court also dismissed Aul's direct liability negligence claims as to Defendants Campbell, Coffman, Preston, and Nagle without prejudice due to Aul's failure provide anyspecifics as to his claims against them as they were either not directly or did not interact with him prior to Aul being sent to the outside hospital. (Id., p. 20.) Finally, the court dismissed Aul's medical malpractice vicarious liability claims against all Defendants with prejudice due to his failure to file an appropriate COM in support his claims. (Id., pp. 21-22.)

Aul filed a counseled amended complaint on December 14, 2020. (Doc. 45.) On December 24, 2020, the DOC Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. (Doc. 46.) The Medical Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 4, 2021. (Doc. 47.) Both motions were properly briefed shortly thereafter. (Docs. 48, 49.) Plaintiff filed a single opposition brief addressing both motions to dismiss. (Doc. 50.) Both DOC and Medical Defendants filed reply briefs. (Docs. 51, 52.) The motions are presently ripe for review.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which allows a district court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in civil cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's related medical negligence state law claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Venue is proper in this district because the alleged acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred at SCI-Rockview, located in Centre County, Pennsylvania, which is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In order "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "Conclusory allegations of liability are insufficient" to survive a motion to dismiss. Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 92 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79). To determine whether a complaint survives a motion to dismiss, a court identifies "the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim for relief,"...