Boley v. Armor Corr. Health Servs.

1

JAMES A. BOLEY, JR., Administrator of the Estate of Robert Lee Boley, Plaintiff, v. ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:21CV197 (RCY)

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division

November 15, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roderick C. Young, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., Alvin Harris, M.D., and Arleathia Peck, LPN's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57). The motion has been briefed, and the Court dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court, and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. E.D Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(J). For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies Summary Judgment to Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., Alvin Harris, M.D., and Arleathia Peck, LPN on all Counts of the Complaint (ECF No. 1).^[1]

I. FACTS

On the morning of April 16, 2019, Robert Boley (“Boley”) began to experience chest pains while in the Deerfield Men's Work Center (“Men's Work Center”) recreation area. (Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 2, ECF No. 58; Mem Opp'n Summ. J. 1, ECF No. 83.) According to witness David Lee Copeland, a fellow inmate, Boley sought out Nurse Arleathia Peck (“Nurse Peck”) and asked to be seen for his chest pains. Nurse Peck, who was the nurse on duty at the Men's Work Center, instructed Boley to fill out a request form and “send it to sign up for sick call.” (Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 8; see also Copeland Letter 1-2, ECF No. 58-7.) In the Men's Work Center, all non-emergent medical care is provided through the sick call system, and patients are typically seen the following day for all but serious medical challenges. (Mem Supp. Summ. J. 6; Mem. Opp'n Summ. J. 4.) The seriousness of the complaint is determined based on a nurse's discretion. (Id.)

On a call with his brother James that same day, Boley described “chasing down the nurse” who gave him “the brush off game” shortly before an officer called for another nurse to examine Boley. (Mem. Opp'n Summ. J. 5; Copeland Tr. 144:4-145:10, ECF No. 85-2.) Nurse Peck does not recall these interactions with Boley, but she acknowledges that she was the sole nurse on call between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on the day in question. (Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 6; Peck Dep. 24:4-20, 36:16-21, 78:11-15, 107:8-14, ECF No. 58-3.) Nurse Peck clocked out of work around 2:40 p.m. (Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 1; Mem. Opp'n Summ. J. 7.)

At or around 2:48 p.m., Boley was found on the floor of the Men's Work Center, and officers called for medical help. (Mem. Opp'n Summ. J. 7; Pl. Ex. J, ECF No. 83-10.) Copeland's letter states that Boley collapsed in the hallway near the kitchen, although Copeland later acknowledged that he did not personally see Boley collapse but only saw him on the ground being examined. (Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 2, 8-9; Mem. Opp'n Summ. J. 6-7.) Nurse Charlette Hayes (“Nurse Hayes”), then working at the nearby Deerfield Women's Work Center, received a call from a security officer at the Men's Work Center about an inmate complaining of chest pains and “having a seizure”; she immediately drove to the Men's Work Center to respond to Boley's condition.^[2] (Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 10; see also Pl.'s Ex. A., ECF No. 83-1.) After arriving, Nurse Hayes took Boley's pulse and blood pressure around 3:00 p.m. (Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 10; Mem. Opp'n Summ. J. 7; Hayes Tr. 90:1-6, 142:1-25, ECF No. 58-8.) His blood pressure was 66/48, and his pulse was 60 beats per minute. (Id.; Boley Med. R. 1, ECF No. 58-5.) Nurse Hayes noted those values in Boley's chart and reached out to Dr. Alvin Harris (“Dr. Harris”). (Id.; Hayes Tr. 181:2-22.) While waiting for Dr. Harris to return her call, Nurse Hayes once again took Boley's blood pressure, which had improved to 109/77, and pulse, which had risen to 74. (Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 10; Boley Med. R. 1; Hayes Tr. 90:10-13.)

After some time, Dr. Harris returned Nurse Hayes's call, and Nurse Hayes informed him of Boley's complaints of chest pains and his low vital measures. (Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 10; Hayes Tr. 182:6-24.) Dr. Harris learned from his conversation with Nurse Hayes that Boley was alert and oriented. In response, Dr. Harris instructed her to perform an EKG, and she did so. (Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 11; Harris Tr. 48:13-17, ECF No. 58-9.) The results of the EKG emerged as “Borderline Abnormal.” Nurse Hayes printed the results and read them to Dr. Harris on the phone. (Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 11-12; Harris Tr. 58:25-59:3.) Based on the information received, Dr. Harris decided that the results were not indicative of any acute condition or otherwise concerning, and instructed Nurse Hayes to give Boley 30 ml of Mylanta immediately and every two hours as needed. (Boley Med. R. 1; Hayes Tr. 200:20-201:4, 202:5-17.) Boley was then placed on the sick-call list to be seen by Dr. Harris the next morning. (Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 12.) Around 6:52 p.m., a security officer called Nurse Hayes and informed her that Boley wished to see her again. (Hayes Tr. 203:10-22.) Nurse Hayes gave Boley his second dose of Mylanta and took his blood pressure and pulse again, which had improved to 114/82 and 80, respectively. (Boley Med. R. 1; Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 13.) Boley was then returned to his housing unit, where witnesses, including his brother James Boley, report that he continued to complain of severe pain in the middle of his chest. (Mem. Opp'n Summ. J. 3; Tr. Call between R. Boley and J. Boley, 1:24-2:3.) During the early morning hours of April 17, 2019, Boley was found dead from a ruptured aortic aneurism. (Compl. ¶55, ECF No. 1.)

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff James Boley, brother of the decedent Robert Boley, filed a four-count Complaint on April 14, 2021, alleging negligence, gross negligence, willful and wanton negligence, and federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc. (“Armor”), Nurse Arleathia Peck, and Dr. Alvin Harris (collectively, “the Armor Defendants”) filed an Answer to the Complaint on July 7, 2021. (ECF No. 10.) On April 19, 2022, the Armor Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Memorandum in Support. (ECF Nos. 57-58.) On April 25, 2022, the Armor Defendants filed a Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses William Bethea, Lisa Shawler, and Lori Roscoe, as well as a brief in support of that Motion. (ECF Nos. 64-65.) Plaintiff Boley filed a Motion in Opposition to the Motion to Exclude on May 9, 2022, and the Armor Defendants submitted a rebuttal brief on May 10. (ECF Nos. 77, 79.) On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff Boley filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Armor Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 83), and the Armor Defendants filed their Reply on May 16 (ECF No. 85).

On July 8, 2022, Magistrate Judge Leonard granted the Armor Defendants' Motion to Exclude as to Lisa Shawler's ability to offer opinions regarding Armor Correctional Health Services and denied the Armor Defendants' Motion to Exclude in all other respects. (ECF No. 92.) On July 13, 2022, the Armor Defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside Judge Leonard's ruling on the Motion to Exclude, as well as a Memorandum in Support of that motion. (ECF Nos. 9394.) Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Set Aside on July 15, 2022 (ECF No. 95), and the Armor Defendants filed a Reply on July 18, 2022 (ECF No. 96).

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriately granted when there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine when the “evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment “bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.” DiSciullo v. Griggs & Co. Homes, 2015 WL 6393813, at *4 (E.D. N.C. Oct. 22, 2015). The burden then “shifts to the nonmoving party to show that there are genuine issues of material fact.” Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Cir. 2008). “Evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [non-movant's] favor.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; see United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962) (“On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in [affidavits, attached exhibits, and depositions] must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.”).

“Furthermore, a ‘material fact' is a fact that might affect the outcome of a party's case.” Marlow v. Chesterfield Cty. Sch. Bd., 749 F.Supp.2d 417, 426-27 (E.D. Va. 2010) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48). “Whether a fact is considered to be ‘material' is determined by the substantive law, and ‘[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.'” Id. at 428. “In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court does not resolve the dispute itself; instead, it finds only that there is sufficient evidence of the dispute requiring that ‘the parties' differing versions of the truth' be resolved at trial.” Diprete v. 950 Fairview St., LLC, No. 1:15CV00034, 2016 WL 6137000, at *2 (W.D. Va. Oct. 21, 2016) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49). “If the evidence as a whole is susceptible of more than one reasonable inference, a jury issue is created and a motion for judgment as a matter of law should be denied.” Myrick v. Prime Ins. Syndicate, Inc., 395 F.3d 485, 489-90 (4th Cir. 2005).

IV. DISCUSS...