Haughie v. Wexford Health Sources

ROBERT HAUGHIE, Plaintiff, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. ELH-18-3963

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

September 17, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Robert Haughie, a Maryland prisoner, filed a civil rights suit, through counsel, under 42 U.S.C § 1983. ECF 1 (the "Complaint"); ECF 40 ("Amended Complaint"). He also asserts claims under Maryland law. Among other claims, plaintiff alleges constitutionally inadequate medical care with respect to the diagnosis of his brain tumor.

Plaintiff has sued a host of defendants, known and unknown, claiming they failed "to properly diagnose the tumor . . . ." ECF 40, ¶ 6. The defendants include Wexford Health Sources, Inc. ("Wexford"); Quinn Mallory, R.N.; Charles Williams III; Mary Rockefeller, N.P.; Michael Smith, R.N.; Marian Peters, R.N.; Nurse Newman Azubuike; Nurse Electa Awanga; Melaku Ayalew, M.D.; Yonas Sisay, M.D.; Hiruy Bishaw, M.D.; and P.A. Emmanuel (collectively, the "Medical Defendants"). Haughie also sued Doe Defendants 1-10, as well as the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services ("DPSCS").¹

The operative pleading is the Amended Complaint (ECF 40).² It contains seven causes of action, which I shall reference as counts. Counts I through VI correspond to the claims in the original Complaint; only Count VII is new. See ECF 1. Plaintiff asserts that he "has been left over 50% disabled, and must live the rest of his life with severe difficulty walking, swallowing, and talking." ECF 40, ¶ 6. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages as well as attorney's fees. Id. at 23.

Count I alleges "Deprivation of Eighth Amendment Right to Medical Care," and is lodged against all defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. ¶¶ 58-76. Count II, lodged against Wexford and DPSCS, asserts "Policy & Practice of Denial of Medical Care," under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. ¶¶ 77-91. In Count III, filed against all defendants, plaintiff asserts violations of Articles 24 and 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Id. ¶¶ 92-96. In Count IV, plaintiff asserts a claim against all defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. ¶¶ 97-103. Count V is styled as "Respondeat Superior" and is lodged against Wexford. Id. ¶¶ 104-106. In Count VI, plaintiff seeks "Indemnification" as to Wexford and DPSCS. Id. ¶¶ 107-110. Count VII presents a claim for medical malpractice, lodged against Dr. Sisay, Nurse Smith, Nurse Rockefeller, Nurse Awanga, Dr. Ayalew, and P.A. Emmanuel. Id. at 22.

Awanga, Ayalew, Azubuike, Bishaw, Mallory, Peters, Rockefeller, Sisay, Smith, and Wexford have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF 41. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 41-1 (collectively, the "Motion").³ Haughie opposes the Motion. ECF 42. Defendants have replied. ECF 43.

No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion in part and deny it in part.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Haughie is a Maryland prisoner incarcerated at "JCI." ECF 40, ¶ 10. He alleges that on November 11, 2015, he "began to experience painful and debilitating headaches that refused to subside." Id. ¶ 31. These headaches affected his "balance, appetite, speech, alertness, vision, and continence and caused him to become dizzy." Id. ¶ 33.

Haughie's symptoms persisted until December 24, 2015, when he was hospitalized. Id. ¶ 32. At that time, he was diagnosed with a benign brain tumor. Id. ¶ 34. He underwent surgery a few days later, on December 28, 2015, at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Id. ¶ 54.

Wexford is a corporation "hired by DPSCS to provide medical services to those who, like Plaintiff, are incarcerated in the Department of Corrections." Id. ¶ 12. It was responsible for plaintiff's medical care during the relevant time. Id. In November and December 2015, when Haughie's symptoms first appeared and persisted, he was seen by several Wexford health care providers.

On November 19, 2015, Haughie was seen by Williams, an attending nurse. Id. ¶¶ 23, 35. Although plaintiff allegedly reported his persistent headaches, he claims that Williams "failed to accurately report Plaintiff's symptoms on the medical records that would be viewed by other providers responsible for Plaintiff's care." Id. ¶ 35.

Haughie alleges that Sisay, an attending physician at JCI (id. ¶ 18), recorded Haughie's headaches and dizziness "as early as December 2, 2015, but no differential diagnosis was performed nor was any appropriate treatment provided." Id. ¶ 36. The next day, Dr. Sisay "continued" Haughie's existing prescriptions for Neurontin and Fioricet. Id. ¶ 37.

Smith, a nurse, saw Haughie on December 5, 2015. Id. ¶ 38. But, he "failed to record any of Plaintiff's complaints related to his debilitating headaches and dizziness or provide any treatment for Plaintiff's condition whatsoever." Id. And, Smith again saw Haughie on December 20, 2015, but again did not record his symptoms, according to plaintiff. Id. ¶ 40.

In the interim on December 14, 2015, Haughie was seen by Rockefeller, a nurse practitioner. Id. ¶¶ 26, 39. According to plaintiff, Rockefeller failed to record his symptoms. Id. ¶ 39.

Between December 20 and December 22, Haughie claims he could not eat or walk. Id. ¶ 41. Haughie went to health services on December 22, 2015, where he was again seen by Rockefeller. Id. ¶ 42. She "noted that Plaintiff appeared tired, semi-asleep, and was having difficulty talking." Id.

On the same date, Peters, a nurse, and Azubuike, also a nurse, "observed that Plaintiff appeared very drowsy, had slow quiet speech, and was unsteady walking." Id. ¶¶ 21, 24, 43. Further, they noted that plaintiff's blood pressure was elevated, he was unsteady in walking, and had reported vomiting, dizziness, and a headache. Id. ¶ 44.

According to Haughie, his condition was "drastically worse" than what was reported by defendants at the time. Id. ¶ 45. He alleges that at the time, he was "experiencing neurological damage from the growth of a brain tumor which caused extreme headaches, extreme disorientation, loss of motor function in his legs and hands, and extreme pain and suffering." Id.

During this time, a physician's assistant, identified as "P.A. Emmanuel," prescribed Motrin for Haughie. Id. ¶¶ 19, 46. However, no emergency treatment was provided, nor was a doctor called to evaluate plaintiff. Id. ¶ 47.

On December 23, 2015, defendant reported his symptoms to Dr. Ayalew and to nurse Awanga. Id. ¶¶ 16, 25, 49. Haughie alleges that both Ayalew and Awanga "falsely reported that Plaintiff was no longer experiencing headaches or disorientation, or lack of motor function, and decided Plaintiff did not need to be referred for any further treatment." Id. ¶ 49.

The following day, December 24, 2015, Haughie reported his "unabated" symptoms to Dr. Bishaw. Id. ¶¶ 17, 50. Haughie alleges that Dr. Bishaw "falsely reported that Plaintiff was no longer experiencing headaches, disorientation, or lack of motor function, and decided that Plaintiff did not need to be referred for any further treatment." Id. ¶ 50. Haughie maintains that his "pain and distress increased during this time" because he was not receiving appropriate treatment. Id. ¶ 51.

That day, a medical staff member noted that Haughie "was unable to move his left leg, had numbness in his left hand, no normal movement in [his] right hand, and had abdominal pain going through chest to shoulder." Id. At that point, Wexford staff called an ambulance and Haughie was transported to Baltimore Washington Medical Center. Id. ¶ 53. There, Haughie received a CT scan, which revealed a brain tumor. Id. Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to Johns Hopkins Hospital, id. ¶ 53, and underwent surgery there on December 28, 2015, to remove the brain tumor. Id. ¶ 54.

Plaintiff claims that his surgery was "complicated by increased intracranial pressure from the undiscovered and undiagnosed brain tumor." Id. ¶ 54. Moreover, he alleges that he"currently suffers from a long term to permanent difficulty swallowing, walking, and talking. Id. ¶ 55.

Additional facts are included in the Discussion, infra.

II. Legal Standards

A. Rule 12(b)(6)

A defendant may test the legal sufficiency of a complaint by way of a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Fessler v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 959 F.3d 146, 152 (4th Cir. 2020); Paradise Wire & Cable Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Weil, 918 F.3d 312, 317 (4th Cir. 2019); In re Birmingham, 846 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 2017); Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2016); McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 408 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd sub nom., McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion constitutes an assertion by a defendant that, even if the facts alleged by a plaintiff are true, the complaint fails as a matter of law "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Whether a complaint states a claim for relief is assessed by reference to the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). That rule provides that a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The purpose of the rule is to provide the defendants with "fair notice" of the claims and the "grounds" for entitlement to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).

To survive a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain facts sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) ("Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' . . . ." (citation omitted)); see also Fauconier v. Clarke, 966 F.3d 265, 276 (4th Cir. 2020); Paradise Wire & Cable, ...