Bonaparte v. Wexford Medical Sources Inc et al, No. 8:2015cv00738 - Document 14 (D. Md. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 11/30/2015. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 12/1/15)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bonaparte v. Wexford Medical Sources Inc et al Doc. 14 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT LI{l)U~IP MARYLAND OF POR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 1015 NOV30 A II: Oq KENNETH BONAPARTE. #352447 CLERK'S OrmE AT GREES8ELi 13 y ...!iT II n i Plaintiff Case No.: GJH-15-738 v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES. INC. KATHLEEN STORM. NURSE PRACTITIONER RN MELISSA Defendants MEMORANDUM OPINION Kenneth Bonaparte has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983. seeking $500.000 in damages against Wexford Health Sources. Inc. ("'Wexford") and one of its employees. Nurse Practitioner Kathleen Storm (collectively, the "Medical Defendants"). I Bonaparte. a selt~represented prisoner housed at the Eastern Correctional Institution in Westover. Maryland ("ECI"). alleges that he was provided inadequate medical care following a blow to the head. As a result. Bonaparte claims he is suffering from headaches and a loss of vision. ECF No. I at 3 & ECF No. I-I. Pending is an unopposed2 Motion to Dismiss or. in the Alternative. Motion for Summary Judgment filed by counsel on behalf of the Medical Defendants. ECF No. 10. No hearing is I The Clerk shall amend the docket to rellcet the full and proper spelling of Defendants' names. 2 Pursuant to the dictates of Rosehoro v. Garrison. 528 F.1d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). the Clerk of Court on July 21.2015. informed Bonapane that Defendants Wexford and Storm had filed a dispositive 1110tion;that he had seventeen days in which to file written opposition to the motion: and that ifhc failed to respond. claims against Wexford and Storm could be dismissed without further notice. ,)'el! ECF No. II. Bonaparte has chosen not to respond. Dockets.Justia.com See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For needed to resolve the issues raised in the Complaint. the following I. reasons. the motion will be granted:' LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Standard of I{cvicw-Molion 10 Dismiss . "The purpose ofa Rule 12(b)(6) motion [to dismiss] complaint:' MellI/me)' and citation omitted). v. CI/ecinelli. is to test the sufficiency 616 F.3d 393. 408 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation A Rule 12(b)(6) motion constitutes an assertion even if the facts that plaintiff alleges arc true. the complaint claim upon which relief can be granted:' and view[ 1 them Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Therej()re. 637 F.3d 503. 505 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation immunity. a facts in the Bl'Oekin)!.lon v. Boykins. marks and citation omitted). claim they are entitled to dismissal They further argue that Bonaparte's that. in considering ] as true the well-pled in the light most !avorable to the plaintiff." The Medical Defendants by the Defendant marks fails. as a matter of law ... to state a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). a court must "accept[ complaint ofa Complaim on the basis of qualifIed merely alleges medical negligence and thus cannot be pursued because he failed to first file a claim in the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Defendant amenable Wexford Oftlce. a statutory requirement under Maryland asserts that claims against it must be dismissed to a civil rights action under 42 U.S.c. law. ECl' NO.1 0 at 1-2. because Wexford is not ~ 1983. I. Qualificd Immunity Defendants _' claim entitlement 132 S.Ct. 1657. 1667-68 employee to qualified immunity. citing Fi/al'sk)' \'. Delia. _ (2012). ECl' No. 10 at 18.19. Fi/al'sky overturned U.S. the denial of ~ Defendant "RN Melissa" was never identified and thus not served with the Complaint. Ilad this been idcntitied and served. she also would be entitled to summary judgment based on the findings herein. Thus. this claim is dismissed both for failure to prosecute and on the merits of the claim. 2 qualified immunity to an attorney who was retained by a city in California to assist in an internal investigation concerning a firefighter's potential wrongdoing.ld. at 1666. Defendants fail to demonstrate that Fi/arsk)' has been extended to contractual health care providers working in detention centers or correctional facilities. and the Court will not extend the holding in Fi/arsk)' based on the record before it in the instant case. 2. Medical Negligence The Medical Defendants also assert that the Complaint must be dismissed because Bonaparte failed to comply with Maryland's llealth Claims Arbitration Act. ECl" No. I0 at 2021; see a/so Md. Code Ann .. Cts & Jud. Proc .. ~3-2A-02. Thc Act requires. as a condition precedent to filing suit for "damages of more than the limit of the concurrent jurisdiction of the district court:' that a plaintiff !irst Jile a claim with the Director of the Ilcalthcare Altcrnati,'e Dispute Resolution Oftice. Id.. see a/so Md. Cts & Jud. Proc .. Code Ann. ~ 3-2A-04(a). Maryland state district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over "an action in contract or tort. if the debt or damages claimed do not exceed $30.000. exclusive of prejudgment or postjudgment interest. costs. and attorney's fees." Md. Cts & Jud. Proe.. Code Ann. ~4-401. The instant Complaint seeks $SOO.OOO damages. Even if Bonaparte intended to additionally allege in a claim of medical malpractice pursuant to this Court's supplemental jurisdiction: it is clear from the face of the Complaint that it was filed on pre-printed forms for a civil rights action tiled pursuant to 42 V.S.c. ~1983. and was construed as such by this Court. The asserted failure to comply with the Health Claims Arbitration Act is not an adequate basis for dismissal of the Complaint. , See 28 U.S.c. * 1367(c). 3 3. Amenability to Suit under 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983 Defendant Wexford argues that the Complaint should be dismissed against it because as a corporate entity Wexford cannot be held liable under 42 U,S,c. ~ 1983. ECl' No, 10 at 19-20, The Court agrees. Under ~ 1983. liability is imposed on oOany person who shall subject. or cause to be subjected. any person.,. to the deprivation of any rights, .. ," 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983. The statute requires a showing ofpersollal fault. whether based upon the Defendant's own conduct or another's conduct in executing the Defendant's policies or customs. See Allmell v, Nell' York Cil)' Dep 'I 1)j'Social Sen's .. 436 U,S, 658. 690 (1978); Wesl \', Alkills. 815 F,2d 993. 996 (4th Cir.1987). rev 'd Oil oIher grounds. 487 U,S, 42 (1988) (no allegation of personal involvement relevant to the claimed deprivation); Vinlledge v. Gihh.\, 550 F,2d 926. 928 (4th Cir.1977) (in order for individual defendant to be held liable pursuant to 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983. it must be '"affirmatively shown that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights, , ,") (quoting Bennel/ v, Gravelle. 323 F,Supp, 203, 214 (D.Md.1971). alfd, 451 F.2d lOll (4th Cir.1971». Moreover. a private corporation is not liable under ~ 1983 for actions allegedly committed by its employees when such liability is predicated solely upon a theory of respondeat superior. See Auslin \'. Paramoul1f Parks, Inc.. 195 F,3d 715. 727-28 (4th Cir. 1999); Powell \', SllOPCO Laurel Co.. 678 F.2d 504. 506 (4th Cir. 1982); Clark v. Alwylwul Dep 'I of'Puhlie Sajely and Correelional Sen'iees, 316 Fed, Appx, 279. 282 (4th Cir. 2009), Bonaparte's claim against Wexford asserts no other theory ofliability, Accordingly. Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Wexford is dismissed, Because the Court will consider matters outside of the pleading. the arguments supporting Storm's dismissal will be construed as a Motion I()r Summary Judgment. 4 B. Standard of Review - Motion for Summary .Jud!:ment "When matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court. the [12(b)(6)] motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in [Fed, R, Civ. 1',]56:' LaughlinI'. Melro. JVash. Airp0r/s AlIIh.. 149 F.3d 253, 260-61 (4th Cir. 1998) (alteration in original) (quoting Fed, R. Civ. 1'. 12(b)) (internal quotation marks omitted), Under Fed. R, Civ. 1'. 56(a), the COUl1must grant summary judgment if the moving party demonstrates thcrc is no genuinc issue as to any matcrial fact. and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson \'. Liherly Lohhy. Inc., 477 U,S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing Adicke.I' 1'. S. II. Kress & Co., 398 U,S. 144, 157 (1970)). Once a motion for summary judgment is propcrly madc and supported. the opposing party has the burden of showing that a genuine dispute exists. MalSl/shila Elec. Indl/s. Co. 1'. l.enilh Radio CO/I} 475 U.S. 574. 586-87 .. (1986). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual disputc bctwccn the parties will not dcfeat an otherwise properly supportcd motion for summary judgment: thc rcquircmcnt is that there bc no genuinc issue of material fact:' Anderson. 477 U.S. at 247--48 (alteration in the original). A "material tact" is one that might affect the outcome ofa pat1y's case./d at 248: see a/soJKC Holding Co. \'. Wash. Sporls Ventures. Inc.. 264 FJd 459. 465 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing HoO\'enLewis \'. Caldera, 249 FJd 259, 265 (4th Cir. 2001 ». Whether a fact is considcred to be "material" is determined by the substantive law, and "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude thc entry of summary judgment:' Anderson. 477 U.S. at 248: accord HoO\'en-Lell'is, 249 F.3d at 265. 5 I. Alleged Violation of the Eighth Amendment The Eighth Amendment prohibits "unnecessary and wanton inl1iction of pain:' Gregg \". Georgia. 428 U.S. 153. 173 (1976). and scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment "is notlimitcd to those punishments authorized by statute and imposed by a criminal judgment:' De "[oil/a \". Angelone, 330 F. 3d 630. 633 (4th Cir. 2003). In thc context of denial of medical care. an Eighth Amendment violation arises when the actions of a defendant. or the failure to act. amount to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See E,/elle \'. Gamhle. 429 U.S. 97. 105-06 (1976). Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need requires proof that. objectively. the prisoner plaintiff was suffering from a serious medical issue creating a substantial risk of serious harm and that. subjectively. the prison staff were aware of the need for medical attention but failed to either provide it or ensure the needed care was available. See Farmer \".Brennan. 511 U.S. 825. 837 (1994). The medical records elearly establish that Defendant Storm was not indifferent to a serious medical need, Bonaparte was seen by medical staff on February 13. 2015. immediately after an accident in the prison kitchen. Bonaparte lost his grip on a tray that struck him in the face. A small laceration to his left eyelid did not require stitches. and was eleaned and bandaged. He did not lose consciousness. and his vital signs were normal. ECF No. 10-1 at 1-2. Bonaparte did not complain of impaired vision. dizzincss. hcadachcs. or other problems. and thcrc was no discussion at: or suspicion that. he had suffered a concussion. Id. No problcms werc noted during his examination on February 17. 2015. Id. at 5. On February 18.2015. Bonaparte complained of a headache and was givcn Motrin. Id. at 6. That same evening. hc was seen by medical personnel !()r a complaint of dizziness. His gait was nonnal and hc dcnied vomiting. M.. 6 Bonaparte was examined by Defendant Storm on February 26, 2015, for complaints of migraine headaches and inlemlittent dizziness, lei. at 3--4. He denied loss of consciousness althe time of the kitchen accident or at any time thereafter, and indicated that he returned to work the day after the accident. Bonaparte also denied any loss of or impaired vision. nausea. vomiting. fever, fatigue. or night sweats. and indicated his headaches had become less severe. !d. Bonaparte was in no apparent dislress and showed no neurological deficit upon examination. He was alert and oriented, his pupillary reaction was normal. and his extraocular movements were intact. Jd. Storm ordered 500 mg Excedrin Tension Headache medication and instructed Bonaparte 10 use cold compresses to the f(lrehead when he had a headache. Bonaparte was instructed to tollow up if his condition worsened or if there was no improvement in ten days. Jd. When Bonapm1e reported little reliet: Storm substituted the tension headache medication with 250 mg of Excedrin Migraine. effective March 4. 2015. Jd. at 10. On March 8. 2015. Bonaparte expressed concerns about the change in medication to a nurse. and asked to have his activity restrictions lined. lei. at II. During Ihis visit his vital signs were normal. and he did not complain of dizziness. vision problems. headache. nausea. vomiting or weakness. As there was no indication of concussion. the restrictions were lined. ld. Bonaparte complained of chest pains on March 16.2015. bUlmade no complaints of headaches. dizziness. loss of or impaired vision. nausea. vomiting. or weakness. lei. at 13. On March 2 1.2015. he tilled out a sick call slip stating that "for the past 7 or 8 days. the headaches have been slight and not that bad:' but that his headache that day (on March 21) woke him and that about 20-25 minutes later "it went away by itself." lei. at 15. On March 30. 2015. he complained to a nurse of intennittent headaches with minimal relief on Excedrin Migraine. The nurse noted his vital signs were normal and referred Bonaparte to a mid-level provider. Jd. at 16. 7 Bonaparte was again seen on April I. 2015. complaining ofa headache.ld. at 18-19. On May 4. 2015. he was seen by both a nurse and physician !IJrchronic care follow up for asthma. esophageal disease, and hyperlipidemia. His vital signs remained stable. He reported headaches. but made no complaints of dizziness. loss of or impaired vision. nausea. vomiting. or weakness at the time of either visit, nor was there any discussion or suspicion of concussion. /d at 20-22. He complained about a rash on May 21. 2015. /d at 23. He also indicated on May 24. 2015. that he needed a dental filling. /d at 25. Bonaparte visited the medical unit on three occasions in June. but never complained of headaches, loss of or impaired vision. nausea. vomiting. or weakness. nor was there any discussion or suspicion of concussion. Id. at 26-29. On June 12.2015. hc complained of dizziness due to the heat in his housing unit. Id. at 27. Thc hcat was also blamed for his asthma flare-up on June 15. 2015./d at 29. Nothing in the rccord suggests that Bonaparte continued to sutTer from his accidcnt. or that Defendant Storm and other health care providers failed to consider and treat his headaches and other unrelated mcdical complaints. Indeed. the record strongly suggests that Bonaparte did not sufTer a concussion or other objectively serious injury as a rcsult of the accident. but that he sufTers intermittent headaches from some unrelated cause. That condition is frequently monitored and is kept under control with headache medication. Bonaparte is not entitled to unqualified acccss to hcalth care. see Doris r. lVi/lialllson. 208 r.Supp.2d 631. 633 (N.D.W.V. 2002) (quoting IllIdson \'. Mdlillian. 503 U.S. I. 9 (1992». and mcrc disagrccment with the course oftreatmcnt providcd. without more. does not state an Eighth Amcndment claim. See Tay/or r. Barnell, 105 F.Supp.2d 438. 487 (E,D. Va, 2000) (citing WrightI'. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985». Even vicwing the evidence in the light 8 most favorable to the Plaintiff, Defendant Storm was not indifferent to a serious medical need. Thus, the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Storm is dismissed. II. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the unopposed Motion filed on behalf of the Medical Defendants. construed both as a Motion to Dismiss and as a Motion for Summary Judgment, is granted in a separate Order. Date: 11/30/;;2015 GEORGE JARROD HAZEL United States District Judge 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
