Case Law Boley v. Armor Corr. Health Servs.

Boley v. Armor Corr. Health Servs.

Document Cited Authorities (13) Cited in Related
MEMORANDUM OPINION

RODERICK C. YOUNG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Emmanuel Bynum's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, Motion for a New Trial (“Bynum JMOL Motion,” ECF No. 182), Defendants Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc.'s and Arleathia Peck's (Armor Defendants)[1] Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, Motion for a New Trial (“Armor Defendants' JMOL Motion,” ECF No. 199), and the Armor Defendants' Motion to Alter Amend, or Correct Judgment (ECF No. 196). The Motions have been fully briefed, and the Court dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are fully developed, and argument would not aid the Court in its decisional process. E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(J). Because all defendants have failed to meet their burden to set aside the jury's verdict, the Court will deny Defendants' motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law. The Court will, however, grant the Armor Defendants' Motion to Alter, Amend, or Correct Judgment.

I. FACTS

On April 17, 2019, Robert Boley (Boley), an inmate at Deerfield Men's Work Center (“Deerfield” or “Men's Work Center”), was found dead in his cell from a ruptured aortic aneurism. His brother and beneficiary, James Boley (Plaintiff'), filed this civil rights and medical malpractice litigation against Defendants Emmanuel Bynum and Joel Guy, both correctional officers at the facility, and against Defendants Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., Alvin Harris, M.D., and Arleathia Peck, LPN. Following a five-day jury trial, the jury found for Plaintiff on Plaintiff's negligence and gross negligence claims against Nurse Peck, for which Armor was vicariously liable, and on Plaintiff's gross negligence claim against Defendant Bynum. Defendants Guy and Harris were not found liable on any counts. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $4,000,000. The instant motions followed. This action involves a lengthy and complex factual and procedural history that has been fully produced in the Court's prior opinions. Only the facts pertinent to the present motions are produced herein.

A. Boley Interacts with Nurse Peck

In the morning of April 16, 2019, Robert Boley, an inmate at the Deerfield Men's Work Center, began experiencing chest pains while in the recreation area. Sometime in the afternoon, Boley sought medical attention from the nurse on duty at the Men's Work Center. According to witnesses Marese Francis and Carlo Wilson and records from the prison, Defendant Nurse Peck was the nurse on duty when Boley sought assistance. See Tr. 400:20-24; Tr. 440:18-19; Tr. 730:19-21. During trial, Plaintiff presented evidence that Nurse Peck, who was at or approaching the end of her work shift, refused to examine Boley, instead telling him that he needed to submit a medical slip for sick call. Tr. 400:22-24; Tr. 728:2-16. Boley later told his brother James that a nurse gave him “the brush off game” when he sought treatment earlier in the day. Tr. 325:1520. Nurse Hayes, who examined Boley shortly after the end of Nurse Peck's shift, seemingly confirmed this account in her records, which indicated that Boley informed her that he was turned away from medical earlier in the day. Tr. 600:18-601:4.

Shortly after Boley's encounter with Nurse Peck, Nurse Hayes was called to the Men's Work Center in order to assess Boley's condition. Tr. 514:2-9. Upon taking his vitals, she found that Boley had a blood pressure of 66/48 and a pulse of 60 beats per minute. Tr. 468:3-4; 513:57. Nurse Hayes contacted the on-duty physician, Defendant Dr. Harris. At his request, she retook Boley's vitals (which had since improved) and performed an EKG, which appeared to be borderline abnormal. Tr. 516: 15-16. She read the results of the EKG to Dr. Harris over the phone. Tr. 529:7-19. Based on this information, Dr. Harris opted against sending Boley to the emergency room and instead diagnosed him with acid reflux and scheduled an appointment for him to be seen the following morning. Tr. 521:8-522:2; 523:6-8; 577:7-11; and 580:1-3.

During trial, Plaintiff's expert witness, Nurse Lori Roscoe, PhD, testified that Nurse Peck's actions significantly deviated from the standard of care when she instructed Boley “to put a complaint of chest pain as a sick call slip in the box.” Tr. 589:16-18. As Nurse Roscoe was not certified as a causation witness, she offered no opinion about causation as it relates to Nurse Peck. Plaintiff's causation experts, physicians Dr. Rishi Kundi and Dr. William Bethea, testified that Mr. Boley likely would have survived if he had been sent to the emergency room in the afternoon or evening of April 16. See Tr. 631:1-6; 632:18-21; 639:18-640:3; 700:1-7.

B. Officer Bynum's Shift

Defendant Bynum, the watch commander, arrived at Deerfield for his overnight shift at or about 5:00 p.m. Upon arriving at Deerfield, an outgoing correctional officer informed him that Boley was to see a doctor in the morning because he had fallen ill during the day. Plaintiff's first witness, Reggie Flowers, one of Boley's fellow inmates in his block, testified that he spoke with Bynum multiple times, urging him to secure emergency medical care for Boley. Tr. 199:12-15. Flowers testified that Bynum said that the prison was understaffed and that he was trying to call the main prison facility to secure help. Tr. 195:22-23. Although Flowers testified that he had multiple conversations about Boley's condition with Bynum, Bynum disputed this and claimed that he would not discuss one inmate's health with another inmate. Tr. 1070:13-17. At Boley's request, Bynum called Nurse Hayes back to the Men's Work Center in the early evening. She assessed him again and gave him another dose of Mylanta. Boley then returned to the housing unit.

Around 9:46 p.m., Boley called his brother James. See Tr. 374:7-14; Tr. 821:11; Tr. 701:20-702:3. The location of this call is disputed. During the call, Boley described his pain as severe and prolonged and asked about the severity of pain associated with acid reflux. Pl. Trial Ex. 9. After the call, Boley returned to his cell, and a subsequent security check performed by Officer Guy found him lying down in bed. At approximately 5:30 a.m. on April 17, 2019, officers conducting rounds found Boley sitting up in his cell, unresponsive. Tr. 847:9-10. Shortly thereafter, he was pronounced dead. His official cause of death was a ruptured aortic aneurysm due to hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Tr. 847:15-21.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff James Boley, brother of the decedent Robert Boley, filed a four-count Complaint on April 14, 2021, alleging negligence (as to Defendants Harris and Peck only), 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.) Defendants Emmanuel Bynum and Joel Guy (collectively, “the Correctional Officer Defendants) filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on July 28, 2021. (ECF No. 23.) The Court denied the Correctional Officer Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to all counts of the Complaint on March 28, 2022. (ECF Nos. 50-51.) On April 19, the Armor Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Memorandum in Support (ECF No. 64-65); the Correctional Officer Defendants likewise filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on accompanying memorandum on April 21, 2022 (ECF Nos. 60-61). On November 15, 2022, the Court issued separate opinions denying both Motions for Summary Judgment as to all defendants on all counts. (ECF Nos. 122 and 124.)

The Court held a Final Pretrial Conference for all parties on November 17, 2022. On November 22, Plaintiff's counsel informed the Court and counsel for the Defendant that Plaintiff intended to withdraw the willful and wanton claims (Count III) against all defendants, to which there were no objections. The five-day trial in this matter commenced on December 5, 2022. On December 7, the third day of trial, the Court granted the Armor Defendants' motion to strike testimony of Marese Francis that concerned Defendant Nurse Peck's character and reputation. The Court subsequently issued a limiting instruction to the jury. The parties' joint stipulations of fact were read into the record. Following the reading of the stipulations, Plaintiff rested his case.

Outside of the presence of the jury, both Armor Defendants and Correctional Officer Defendants subsequently made and argued oral motions for judgment as a matter of law. Finding that Plaintiff had produced evidence on each element of Counts One, Two, and Four, the Court denied both motions. See Tr. 869:1-18. Both sets of Defendants concluded their cases and rested on December 8, the fourth day of trial. Out of the presence of the jury, Defendants renewed their oral motions for judgment as a matter of law, which the Court denied. After closing arguments and deliberations on December 9, 2022, the jury returned a verdict finding that Nurse Peck was negligent and grossly negligent, finding that Bynum was grossly negligent, and awarding damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $4,000,000.00. (ECF No. 158.) The jury did not award prejudgment interest. (Id.) After the reading of the verdict, Counsel for Armor ...

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex