Doctor wasn’t deliberately indifferent to detainee

Where the mother of man who died from gallstones while in prison sued numerous individuals, the majority of her claims against the prison doctor were dismissed because the facts did not support claims for deliberate indifference or gross negligence.

Background

Sharon Dallas, administratrix of the Estate of Charles Duynes, brings this action against 14 defendants alleging violations of federal and state law. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of defendants’ failure, Duynes died from hemorrhagic pancreatitis due to obstructive cholelithiasis and cholecystitis, or “in laymen’s terms” gallstones, “a medical condition that should have been easily diagnosed and was completely treatable if diagnosed and managed.” This matter now comes before the court on Dr. Sejal Patel’s motion to dismiss certain counts in the second amended complaint, other than the negligence count, which Dr. Patel has not moved to dismiss.

Deliberate indifference

To state an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must allege facts showing “(1) that objectively the deprivation of a basic human need was ‘sufficiently serious,’ and (2) that subjectively the prison officials acted with a ‘sufficiently culpable state of mind.’”

The court finds, for the purpose of the motion to dismiss, that plaintiff has satisfied the objective prong of the deliberate indifference test by establishing that Duynes had a “serious medical need so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Indeed, Dr. Patel “assumes, without conceding, that Duynes had a medical need sufficient to satisfy the first prong.”

Turning to the subjective prong, plaintiff avers that Dr. Patel “failed to examine, treat, or provide the decedent with any diagnostic testing.” However, these allegations run contrary to Dr. Patel’s notes which plaintiff attached, in part, to her amended complaint.

Next, even taking the facts alleged as true and reading them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff concedes that documents are silent as to whether Dr. Patel diagnosed Duynes’ medical condition. This allegation admits that Dr. Patel did not have actual knowledge of Duynes’ condition, an essential element of a deliberate indifference claim.

Similarly, plaintiff’s allegations that Dr. Patel failed to order diagnostic testing or examination as a result of the “abnormal” laboratory results go to Dr. Patel’s medical judgment, rather than a showing of deliberate indifference. Therefore, the court will grant Dr. Patel’s motion to dismiss as to the deliberate indifference claim against her.

Gross negligence

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for gross negligence against Dr. Patel. A claim for gross negligence “must fail as a matter of law when the evidence shows that the defendants exercised some degree of care.” Here, the facts alleged show that Dr. Patel exercised some degree of care during her only interaction with Duynes when she examined his results on Jan. 28, 2019. Although Dr. Patel did not conduct additional diagnostic testing on Duynes, her review of the lab results and note that the decedent needed to be examined during his next chronic care visit does not evince a “heedless and palpable violation of legal duty respecting the rights of others which amounts to the absence of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care.” Rather, Dr. Patel’s treatment shows “some degree of care,” sufficient to thwart plaintiff’s claim of gross negligence.

Punitive damages

The court has found that plaintiff has not adequately stated a claim for deliberate indifference as to Dr. Patel. Thus, plaintiff has not adequately alleged Dr. Patel’s callous indifference to Duynes, and has not plausibly supported a claim for punitive damages. And by inadequately stating a deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Patel, plaintiff has failed to state a claim for punitive damages under Virginia’s Wrongful Death Statute.

Therefore, the court grants Dr. Patel’s motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim.

Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss granted.

Dallas v. Craft, Case No. 3:21-cv-349, Sept. 21, 2022. EDVA at Richmond (Novak). VLW 022-3-420. 23 pp.