Hollie v. Essentia Health Moose Lake Clinic

1

Shannon Hollie, Plaintiff, v. Essentia Health Moose Lake Clinic, et al., Defendants.

No. 22-cv-314 (KMM/LIB)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 22, 2023

ORDER

KATHERINE MENENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

On February 1, 2022, Shannon Hollie, who is involuntarily civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program's facility in Moose Lake, Minnesota, filed this lawsuit against Defendants Essentia Health Moose Lake Clinic (“Essentia”) and Dr. Benjamin Marsh. Mr. Hollie alleges that Defendants provided inadequate medical treatment for his erectile dysfunction following a prostatectomy and cancer treatment. Specifically, Mr. Hollie claims that Dr Marsh violated his constitutional rights when Dr. Marsh told Mr. Hollie that he would not perform a penile implant procedure to treat Mr. Hollie's condition given Mr Hollie's history of being a sex offender. In addition, Mr. Hollie alleges that Dr. Marsh falsified entries in his medical records. Mr. Hollie brings claims against both Defendants under federal and state law.

On July 27, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) concerning the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Judge Brisbois recommended that the motions be granted and this action be dismissed. Mr. Hollie filed timely objections to the R&R, the Defendants responded, and the matter is now pending before this Court for a final decision. As explained below, the Court accepts the R&R, overrules Mr. Hollie's objections, and grants the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. In addition, the Court denies a motion Mr. Hollie filed in which he asks the Court to exclude several declarations and exhibits filed by the Defendants from the summary judgment record.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Hollie's Medical Treatment

As explained in the R&R,^[1] Mr. Hollie was diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer. Mr. Hollie had a prostatectomy surgery in 2018, but he experienced erectile dysfunction (“ED”) during his recovery process. After the provider who had been treating Mr. Hollie passed away, his urology care was transferred to Dr. Marsh, who saw Mr. Hollie at the Essentia Health Moose Lake Clinic. Dr. Marsh referred Mr. Hollie to an oncologist for concerns with elevated PsA levels, and the oncologist eventually told Mr. Hollie he would refer him back to Dr. Marsh for urology treatment concerns, including his post-operative ED. In March 2020, Dr. Marsh told Mr. Hollie that options for treatment of ED would be discussed after follow-up cancer treatment had been completed.

In June 2021, Dr. Marsh saw Mr. Hollie regarding incontinence, difficulties emptying his bladder, and other concerns, and Dr. Marsh scheduled a diagnostic cystoscopy. During a follow-up appointment, Dr. Marsh discussed Mr. Hollie's treatment options for his ED concerns, including taking medication in either a pill or liquid form or receiving a penile implant. Mr. Hollie expressed interest in the implant procedure, and Dr. Marsh said he would look into setting up the procedure. In August 2021, Dr. Marsh performed a cystoscopy procedure on Mr. Hollie, and afterward, Mr. Hollie asked again about the implant. However, Dr. Marsh told Mr. Hollie that he may want to get a different urologist because Dr. Marsh was not comfortable performing the procedure for Mr. Hollie given his history of being a sex offender. Meanwhile, Mr. Hollie received a referral to a different urologist, “Dr. Johnson,” from a physician who was treating him for his diabetes.

Dr. Marsh directed Mr. Hollie to raise his concerns with the ethics committee and Mr. Hollie was told to return to Essentia in six months for a follow-up regarding his PsA levels. Eventually, in November 2021, after Mr. Hollie contacted Essentia to ask about the status of the ethics committee review, Essentia informed Mr. Hollie that it could not compel its physicians to perform a surgery. Further, Essentia told Mr. Hollie that to pursue the issue further, he would need to deal with Essentia's legal team. Mr. Hollie initiated this lawsuit in February 2022 and continued to seek treatment with a new urologist through requests with MSOP Health Services. Mr. Hollie eventually saw Dr. Johnson at St. Luke's Hospital for urology needs, but did not discuss his ED or available treatment options. He is considering seeking the penile implant through the Veteran's Administration and completed preliminary paperwork.

Summary Judgment Motions and the R&R

The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment in April 2023. [Doc. Nos. 100, 108.] In May, Mr. Hollie filed his “Motion in Limine” and a memorandum in opposition to Essentia's motion for summary judgment. [Doc. Nos. 118, 127.] Judge Brisbois took the summary judgment motions under advisement based on the written submissions and issued the R&R on July 27, 2023.

In the R&R, Judge Brisbois concluded that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the merits of all of Mr. Hollie's federal claims. First, Judge Brisbois examined Mr. Hollie's claims, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Defendants violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and for discriminating against him based on his status as a committed sex offender. Judge Brisbois found that a reasonable jury could not find in Mr. Hollie's favor on these claims against Dr. Marsh because § 1983 only applies to state actors, and there was no evidence that Dr. Marsh would be deemed a state actor under the circumstances of this case. [Doc. No. 146 at 10-12.] Specifically, he explained

[T]here is . . . no proof of a contract and no proof of an ongoing relationship between the MSOP and Dr. Marsh. Instead, it appears only that those civilly committed patients within the MSOP, such as [Mr. Hollie], were taken to medical facilities, like Essentia . . ., on an as-needed basis for medical treatment not otherwise available within the MSOP, and the doctors and health care professionals who treated [Mr. Hollie], like Dr. Marsh, did so in a private facility and exercised independent medical judgment. There is simply nothing in the record to suggest that Dr. Marsh acted in concert with state officials, or that his conduct is otherwise chargeable to the state.

[Id. at 12.]

Second, Judge Brisbois found that Essentia was entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Hollie's § 1983 claims. He explained that Essentia could not be held liable under a respondeat superior theory where Dr. Marsh had not been found to have committed an underlying violation. [Id.] Further, Judge Brisbois found that the evidence established that Essentia was not Dr. Marsh's employer. [Id. at 12-13.] And he concluded that even if Dr. Marsh was held liable under § 1983, as a matter of law, a private employer may not be vicariously liable under § 1983. [Id. at 13.]

Next, Judge Brisbois found that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Hollie's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.^[2] Citing cases that have held § 1981 forbids racial discrimination in the making of private and public contracts, but does not cover other forms of discrimination, Judge Brisbois found that Mr. Hollie could not prevail on his claims under the statute because he “only alleged facts related to discrimination on the basis of his convicted sex offender status.” [Id. at 13-14 (citing St. Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 609 (1987) and Anooya v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 733 F.2d 48, 50 (7th Cir. 1984)).] Further, Judge Brisbois determined that Essentia could not be held vicariously liable under § 1981 because Essentia is not Dr. Marsh's employer and there was no evidence of an underlying violation of the statute by Dr. Marsh. [Id. at 14 n.2.]

Judge Brisbois next considered Mr. Hollie's claims under Titles II and III of the ADA, and agreed with the Defendants that those claims fail because there was no evidence that Mr. Hollie is an “individual with a disability” within the meaning of the ADA. [Id. at 14-15.] Judge Brisbois explained his reasoning as follows: “while Plaintiff asserts that he is disabled because of erectile dysfunction, he has offered no indication as to how this alleged disorder rendered him disabled for purposes of the ADA.” [Id. at 15.] And Judge Brisbois found Essentia could not be held vicariously liable under the ADA as well based on an analysis similar to that used in the § 1983 context. [Id. at 15 n.3.]

Finally, Judge Brisbois noted that Mr. Hollie asserted claims under Minnesota state law, including under the Rehabilitation Act, the Minnesota Health Records Act, and Minn. Stat. § 541.076.^[3] However, Judge Brisbois did not reach the merits of these claims. Instead, he determined, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), that with all of the federal claims subject to summary judgment, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and that they should be dismissed without prejudice. [Id. at 15-18.]

DISCUSSION

I. Motion in Limine

After the Defendants moved for summary judgment, Mr. Hollie filed a motion captioned as a “Motion in Limine.” In it he argued that several declarations submitted in support of the Defendants' motions are inadmissible and should not be considered by the Court. [Doc. No. 119.] One of the submissions Mr. Hollie seeks to exclude from consideration is the Declaration of defense counsel, Tracy A Schramm, to which several exhibits are attached, including excerpts of Mr. Hollie's deposition and copies of Mr. Hollie's medical records. [Schramm Decl. & Exs. A-D, Doc. No. 103.^[4] In addition, Mr. Hollie argues that the Court should strike the Declaration of defense counsel, Bryon G. Ascheman, attached to which is a copy of Dr....