Staggs v. Doctors Hosp. of Manteca, Inc.

LINNIE STAGGS, individually and as Administrator of the Estate ofRobert E. Staggs, and MELISSA STAGGS, Plaintiffs, v. DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC., et al., Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-00414-MCE-KJN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

January 29, 2019

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Linnie Staggs, individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Robert E. Staggs ("Decedent"), and Melissa Staggs (collectively "Plaintiffs"), seek redress from, inter alia, Defendants Jack St. Clair, M.D.; Curtis Allen, M.D.; Lincoln Russin, M.D.¹; Edwin Bangi, M.D.; John Krpan, D.O.; Mario P. Sattah, M.D.; Doctors Hospital of Manteca ("DHM"); and various Doe Defendants (collectively "Defendants") stemming from Defendants' medical treatment of Decedent during his incarceration at Sierra Conservation Center ("SCC").

Plaintiffs' operative complaint raises eight claims for relief, including: (1) inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of crueland unusual punishment; (2) failure to summon and provide medical care in violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 845.6; (3) negligence; (4) deliberate indifference in conducting a liver biopsy; (5) violation of rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1; (6) inadequate post-biopsy recovery; (7) wrongful death; and (8) loss of companionship. After the close of discovery, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 182), to which the Court issued its Memorandum and Order on March 21, 2018. ECF No. 203. The Court granted the motion regarding Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action for inadequate post-biopsy recovery, but otherwise denied Defendants' requests. Order, ECF No. 203, at 2:4-7.

Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, contending that the Court made several clear errors of law in ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement. See Mot. Recon., ECF No. 204. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.²

BACKGROUND³

Decedent Robert Staggs was incarcerated at SCC beginning on August 5, 2008. He was diagnosed with Hepatitis C virus ("HCV") in 1980 and began to experience worsening symptoms associated with his HCV diagnosis in May 2009, during his prison term. Those worsening symptoms included pruritus, darkened urine, and open sores. Plaintiffs allege that Decedent's symptoms became so extreme that they gave him insomnia and interfered with his ability to participate in regular daily activities. According to Plaintiffs, while Decedent's symptoms pointed to acute liver failure, Defendants only gave him pain medication and other treatments intended to mask the symptoms insteadof properly diagnosing and addressing the underlying problems. In June 2009, Defendant Bangi, one of the SCC doctors, administered a blood test to Decedent that showed an increase in Decedent's alpha-feta protein ("AFP") level from 11 to 35, while a normal value is between zero and eight. Following this result, Defendants continued to give Decedent only painkillers and did not repeat the AFP test or give him further treatment at that time. In July 2009, Defendant Bangi ordered an MRI of Decedent's liver. That test was administered on August 30 of that year and showed a possible lesion.

On December 8, 2009, Decedent submitted a 602-inmate appeal form to the SCC Healthcare Appeals Office requesting medical attention for his symptoms. He received a denial of his request on December 21, 2009, which he appealed two days later. On December 26, 2009, Decedent went "man-down" in his cell, and was taken to the Sonora Regional Medical Center hospital where he received an ultrasound and a CT scan. Both tests indicated cirrhosis and several lesions in Decedent's liver, including one five-centimeter lesion. In January 2010, Defendants St. Clair and Allen scheduled a biopsy of Decedent's liver that Defendant Bangi had originally ordered in October 2009. After two hospitals refused to perform the biopsy on Decedent because of the high risks involved in biopsying a liver like Decedent's with ascites fluid in the peritoneal cavity, DHM agreed to administer the procedure. Plaintiffs assert that Decedent was at a higher risk for acute liver bleeding because of his condition.

Decedent's liver biopsy was performed at DHM on January 22, 2010. Plaintiffs' expert opined that the "universal protocol" for liver biopsies requires the patient to "remain immobile in a supine position" for "three to four hours immediately following the procedure" to help stop internal bleeding, even if the liver is otherwise healthy. However, it is undisputed that Defendants forced Decedent to leave his hospital bed less than an hour after the biopsy so he could be transported back to SCC. The next day, Decedent was unable to urinate, his abdomen became swollen and distended, and he soon began to vomit. No prison personnel came to Decedent's aid until the afternoon of the followingday, January 24, 2010. At that point, Decedent was transferred to the Operating Housing Unit at SCC, and on January 25, 2010, he was taken to the San Joaquin Medical Center for emergency treatment. His biopsy results were returned the next day and confirmed hepatocellular carcinoma. Decedent was transferred to the California Medical Facility in Vacaville on February 4, 2010, where he died on February 12, 2010. Plaintiffs' expert opined that the immediate cause of Decedent's death was "blood loss into his peritoneum" resulting from the liver biopsy performed on January 22, 2010. His official causes of death on his death certificate were hepatocellular carcinoma and end stage liver disease.

Regarding the facts described above, Plaintiffs allege the following action or inaction by each named Defendant:

• Dr. St. Clair: screened out Decedent's 602 inmate appeal for "abuse of the appeal procedure"; approved Decedent's liver biopsy despite knowing about Decedent's elevated risk for complications; failed to cause Decedent to be included in the HCV screening program and failed to cause him to be referred to a specialist despite HCV treatment protocols.

• Dr. Bangi: prescribed Decedent painkillers to mask his symptoms instead of treating his liver disease; scheduled Decedent's liver biopsy despite knowing about Decedent's elevated risk for complications.

• Dr. Allen: approved Decedent's liver biopsy despite knowing about Decedent's elevated risk for complications; failed to cause Decedent to be referred to a specialist.

• Dr. Russin: administered Decedent's October 2009 MRI scan and failed to diagnose a tumor based on that test; failed to administer a multiphase MRI that would have revealed Decedent's hepatocellular carcinoma.

• Dr. Krpan: prescribed Decedent painkillers to mask his symptoms instead of treating his liver disease; ordered Decedent's liver biopsy despite knowledge of Decedent's heightened risk for complications.

• Dr. Sattah: administered Decedent's liver biopsy despite knowledge of Decedent's heightened risk for complications; performed the biopsy in a way that further increased risk to Decedent.

• Doctor's Hospital of Manteca: under a theory of respondeat superior for Sattah's conduct, performed Decedent's liver biopsy and discharged Decedent from the hospital too soon after the procedure was completed.

Plaintiffs' first claim for relief alleges that Defendants St. Clair, Bangi, Krpan, Allen, and certain Doe Defendants violated Decedent's constitutional rights by providing him such inferior medical treatment that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 117 at 17-18. Plaintiffs' second claim alleges that certain Doe Defendants failed to summon and provide proper medical care for Decedent in violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 845.6. Id. at 18-19. Plaintiffs' third claim for relief alleges negligence against Defendants Krpan, Bangi, Sattah, DHM, and Doe Defendants, claiming they violated the standard of care by failing to provide adequate testing and treatment of Decedent's medical condition. Id. at 19-20. In their fourth claim, Plaintiffs allege deliberate indifference against Defendants Krpan, Allen, St. Clair, Sattah, Bangi, DHM, and other Doe Defendants in their decision to conduct a liver biopsy on Decedent. Id. at 20-21. Plaintiffs' fifth claim for relief alleges that Doe Defendants utilized threats, intimidation, and coercion against Decedent in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 to force him to leave his hospital bed after the biopsy. Id. at 21. Plaintiffs' sixth claim for relief alleges deliberate indifference against Defendants DHM, Sattah, and other Does arising from their release of Decedent from the hospital less than one hour after his liver biopsy. Id. In the seventh claim for relief, Plaintiff Melissa Staggs, Decedent's daughter, alleges wrongful death under Code Civ. Pro. § 377.60. Id. at 22. In the eighth claim for relief, Plaintiffs Linnie Staggs and Melissa Staggs, Decedent's mother and daughter, respectively, allege loss of companionship. Id. at 23.

/ / /

/ / /

STANDARD

A court should not revisit its own decisions unless extraordinary circumstances show that its prior decision was wrong. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816 (1988). This principle is generally embodied in the law of the case doctrine. That doctrine counsels against reopening questions once resolved in ongoing litigation. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 18 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478). Nonetheless, a court order resolving fewer than all of the claims among all of the parties is "subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).⁴ Where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the court has "inherent jurisdiction to modify,...