Prisons: Parents sue jail and hospital personnel following son’s death

Where parents sued jail and hospital personnel after their son died while in custody, the claims and defendants were narrowed by the court.

Background

Joyce and Louis Thompson bring this suit on behalf of Paul Thompson, who died while being detained at the Arlington, Virginia Adult Detention Center. Multiple defendants have filed motions to dismiss.

Jail defendants

The deliberate indifference allegations against the referenced jail defendants are insufficient because plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege “in what capacity [the referenced jail defendants] interacted with [Thompson], or how (or even if) [the referenced jail defendants] w[ere] responsible for [Thompson’s] medical treatment.”

Regarding the medical malpractice/negligence claim against the referenced jail defendants, plaintiffs fail to allege what kind of health care providers the referenced jail defendants are. Plaintiffs also fail to allege how the referenced jail defendants breached their duty to Thompson. Further, plaintiffs fail to allege how the referenced jail defendants’ actions specifically were the proximate cause of Thompson’s death.

Next, “the court finds no specific allegations in the [complaint] to support a finding of  . . . gross negligence” where “[n]othing in the [complaint] establishes, in terms that are not merely conclusory, that [the referenced jail defendants] knew about Thompson’s . . . medical needs or his condition[s].”

Meeting participation defendants

Plaintiffs allege that the meeting participants sat in on an approximately two-hour long meeting, during which Thompson’s deteriorating condition was expressly acknowledged and discussed. Plaintiffs allege that, by making his statement that Thompson needed to return to the hospital urgently, Cassidy had to be aware of the excessive risk posed if Thompson would not be returned to the hospital.

Moreover, all of the other meeting participant defendants are medical personnel, and plaintiffs allege that they were all aware of medical guidelines for treatment of cellulitis and the risk of DVT in such patients. This risk was realized when Thompson died of a pulmonary embolism, within two hours of the conclusion of the meeting.

Because the complaint plausibly states a claim against the meeting participant defendants for deliberate indifference, there are likewise viable claims for negligence, medical malpractice and gross negligence.

Hospital defendants

To the extent that plaintiffs are alleging that Dr. Yoon committed medical malpractice by not obtaining a second temporary detention order, or TDO, they have failed to allege facts to support that a new TDO could have been obtained or that it could have been obtained by Dr. Yoon. Plaintiffs also fail to assert that Dr. Prasad’s failure to secure a second TDO proximately caused Thompson’s death. Again, plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to a second TDO, who should have sought one and whether it would have been granted are conclusory and speculative.

Plaintiffs next assert claims under the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, which incorporates discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act, or RA. Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Thompson was seriously mentally disabled, and he appeared to have a long history of schizophrenia. Plaintiffs, however, fail to sufficiently allege that the doctor hospital defendants’ treatment of Thompson as a group was discriminatory under the RA.

On the other hand, plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a claim premised on the allegation that the Yoon defendants “ignored the non-administration of medication that Mr. Thompson required according to hospital doctors’ orders.” However plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that the Prasad defendants would have treated Thompson differently if not for his mental disability. And plaintiffs have not alleged that the Prasad defendants would have any knowledge that any treatment provided to Thompson at the jail would be improper or insufficient.

The court will also allow the claim against to go forward against Virginia Hospital Center Arlington Health System. Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the hospital nurses’ apparent neglect or avoidance of Thompson, by way of failing to properly administer his medication, was because of his mental disability and resulting difficult demeanor.

Mediko defendants

From the face of the complaint, it is clear that the meeting participant defendants, all Mediko employees, lacked training that made it extremely likely that an inmate suffering from an immediate medical crisis like Thompson would not be transferred to an appropriate medical facility because the employees did not know who should fill out the paperwork. Accordingly, plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim for relief under § 1983 as to failure to train against Mediko. For similar reasons, their ACA claim survives Mediko’s motion to dismiss.

And because it is clear that the meeting participant defendants were acting within the scope of their employment, plaintiffs have stated a claim for negligence, gross negligence and medical malpractice under a theory of respondeat superior against Mediko.

But plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged sufficient facts to establish that Mediko engaged in this sort of behavior on a more widespread basis. Accordingly, at this stage, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for municipal type liability for failure to supervise against Mediko.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss granted in part, denied in part.

Thompson v. Mediko Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-1736, Sept. 10, 2025. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 025-3-368. 34 pp.