Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-1446.
April 2, 2004
MEMORANDUM
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, William Thomas Hall, brings this action against Bucks County, Pennsylvania and Virgil Thompson, M.D. Count I of the amended complaint alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the 8th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. Count II asserts a common law claim of negligence. Before me now are defendants' motions for summary judgment on Count I and plaintiff's responses thereto.
Bucks County's motion for summary judgment does not specify that it applies only to the claim of Constitutional violations in Count I, but it does not address the negligence claims made in Count II. Therefore, I will treat Bucks County's motion as a motion for partial summary judgment and consider its argument for judgment on Count I.
BACKGROUND
On March 27, 2000, plaintiff dislocated his left elbow and was treated at Helene Fuld Medical Center. Doctors operated on his elbow. On April 1, 2000, Middletown Township police arrested plaintiff and charged him with shoplifting. On that day, plaintiff was placed in Bucks County Correctional Facility ("BCCF").
Corrections officers at BCCF performed a strip search on plaintiff before he was admitted into the facility. Officer Steven Pirmann removed plaintiff's sling and attempted to look and/or feel inside his cast. Plaintiff alleges that he felt his elbow dislocate as Officer Pirmann examined his arm and that he complained of pain at that time and for the rest of his time at BCCF.
Plaintiff first saw a prison physician on April 2, the day after he was incarcerated. Dr. Thompson looked at plaintiff's arm but did not remove the cast or bandaging put in place after plaintiff's March 27 surgery. On April 3 a technician took an x-ray of plaintiff's arm. Dr. Thompson signed and dated the x-ray on April 7.
Prison officials took plaintiff to see an orthopaedist, Gene D. Levin, M.D., on April 17. Dr. Levin confirmed that plaintiff had a "posterior elbow dislocation" and recommended that he be seen by an upper extremity expert. Plaintiff saw such an expert, Matthew L. Ramsey, on May 3. Dr. Ramsey recommended surgery, but would not perform it until plaintiff was released from prison.
Plaintiff was released from BCCF on June 15, 2000. The next day he went back to the hospital where he had first undergone surgery on his elbow. The needed operation was not performed until November 16, 2000, however, because plaintiff encountered problems with his insurance coverage. During the operation the surgeon fused plaintiff's elbow into a bent position, in which it is permanently set.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact," the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). I will apply this rule in accordance with Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent.See, e.g., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Williams v. Borough of W. Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir. 1989).
DISCUSSION
I. Bucks County's Motion for Summary Judgment
Count I of the amended complaint alleges two unconstitutional conditions within Bucks County's prison system. The first alleged condition is a policy, custom or practice of allowing corrections officers to subject inmates with pre-existing injuries to undue pain and further injury. The second alleged condition is failure to provide proper training and supervision of corrections officers and medical staff at BCCF regarding medical treatment of prisoners with injuries.
A. Policy, Custom or Practice Claim
There is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Officer Pirmann's handling of plaintiff's recently operated-upon arm was in accordance with a Bucks Count policy that violates the 8th and 14th Amendments. Plaintiff opposes Bucks County's motion for summary judgment in part with BCCF's own policy manual. Pl.'s Resp. to Bucks Co.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ex. 9. The manual calls for a "strip search" for new commitments and requires the officer conducting the strip search to "check . . . plaster casts, and bandages." Id. Furthermore, Bucks County admits that "there is a genuine dispute of fact as to how Corrections Officer Pirmann handled Mr. Hall when Mr. Hall was admitted to the Bucks County Correctional Facility on the evening of April 1, 2000." Bucks Co.'s Memo of Law in Support of Mot. for Summ. J., p. 4. Bucks County makes several references to the fact that Officer Pirmann is not named as a defendant in this case. Because plaintiff's claim is against Bucks County for maintaining a policy that violates the Constitution he need not name Officer Pirmann as a defendant.
B. Failure to Train and Supervise Claim
There is also a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Bucks County failed to train and supervise its corrections officers and medical staff in the treatment of prisoners with injuries. Plaintiff has produced evidence showing that corrections officers and medical personnel at BCCF mishandled his injured elbow, failed to remove his surgical bandages to examine his elbow or change the bandages for more than two weeks, deferred making an appointment with an upper extremity specialist for more than nine days after the orthopaedist told Dr. Thompson such a referral should be made as soon as possible, and failed to fill plaintiff's prescription for pain medication. Bucks County has produced some evidence supporting its position, but at this stage there remains a genuine issue of material fact.
II. Dr. Thompson's Motion for Summary Judgment
Dr. Thompson moves for summary judgment by arguing that plaintiff has at most made a claim for medical malpractice, which is not a constitutional violation. The Supreme Court has ruled that a prison doctor's demonstration of deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical need is a violation of the prisoner's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 40, 56 (1988).
The amended complaint alleges gross negligence and deliberate indifference by Dr. Thompson to plaintiff's serious medical need. Plaintiff claims that Dr. Thompson should have known earlier than he did that plaintiff's elbow was dislocated and that he would have known this fact if he had taken plaintiff's bandages off to physically examine his elbow. Plaintiff also alleges that Dr. Thompson should have ensured plaintiff was seen by a doctor who could relocate plaintiff's elbow before it was too late to do so. In opposition to Dr. Thompson's motion for summary judgment plaintiff has submitted a signed memorandum by Joe Goldenson, M.D. Dr. Goldenson expressed his opinion that Dr. Thompson's inaction and/or delayed action constituted "grossly inadequate care."
There is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Dr. Thompson was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical need. I will deny, therefore, Dr. Thompson's motion for summary judgment on this count.