Evelyn Pierce v. NaphCare , 221 F. App'x 969 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________
APRIL 19, 2007
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 06-13195
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
__________________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-02764-CV-LSC-W
EVELYN PIERCE,
as administratrix for the estate of
Danny Cassady, deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NAPHCARE, a corporation organized and
existing in the State of Alabama,
IFEDIBA, Dr., an individual,
GEORGE A. LYRENE, M.D., an individual,
HUYNH, Dr., an individual,
E. RUSSELL, an individual,
E. SMITH, an individual,
R. NICHOLS, R.N., an individual,
BELINDA HOGUE, R.N., an individual,
Defendants-Appellees,
FAULCON, Dr., an individual, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
__________________________________
(April 19, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The administratrix’s decedent, Danny Cassady, died on October 7, 2001,
while an inmate in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections at the
Bibb County Correctional Facility (BCCF). In her amended complaint in this
case, she sought money damages from Naphcare, Inc., which provided medical
care for inmates at BCCF, ten physicians, and thirty-eight other individuals,
including BCCF’s Director of Nursing, several nurses and correctional officers
and the warden. The amended complaint contained four counts; Counts II, III, IV,
V, VI, and VII each incorporated by reference the allegations of all preceding
counts. Reduced to their essentials, these counts presented two bases for liability:
(1) the defendants failed to exercise the care, skill, and diligence as other similar
health care providers would have afforded Cassady under the circumstances, as
required by the Alabama Medical Liability Act (AMLA), Ala. Code § 6-5-480 et
seq., and § 6-5-540 et seq., and (2) the defendants were deliberately indifferent to
2
Cassady’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments and, thus, were answerable in damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By
the time the district court disposed of this case via the summary judgment now
before us for review, the defendants were Naphcare, three physicians, Drs. Lang
Huynh, George Lyrene and Uchenna Ifediba, Director of Nursing Robert Nichols
(RN), a certified registered nurse practitioner, Belinda Hogue (CRNP), and a
licensed practical nurse, Eula Smith (LPN).
The district court granted these defendants summary judgment in a
comprehensive 91-page Memorandum of Opinion and final judgment issued on
May 5, 2006. The court rejected the plaintiff’s AMLA claim on two grounds.
First, the plaintiff’s experts failed to satisfy the AMLA requirement that they be
“similarly situated” to the defendants, i.e., those involved in the patient’s, i.e.,
Cassady’s, care and treatment. Second, the plaintiff failed to establish that the
defendants’ alleged negligence “probably” caused Cassady’s death. As the district
court expressed it on page 46 of its Memorandum of Opinion, “Plaintiff has not
met her burden of establishing that there is more than a mere possibility that the
doctor’s alleged negligence caused Cassady’s death.”
The court rejected the plaintiff’s constitutional claim under § 1983 on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to establish the components of an Eighth
3
Amendment deliberate indifference claim against any of the defendants; that is,
that the defendant was aware of Cassady’s serious medical needs and yet was
deliberately indifferent to such needs.
The plaintiff now appeals the district court’s summary judgment rulings.
She contends that the court erred in rejecting her experts’ testimony that the
defendants’ conduct fell below the standard of care required in a correctional
facility; in concluding that she failed to demonstrate more than a mere possibility
that the defendants’ alleged negligence caused Cassady’s death; and in concluding
that she failed to present a case that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to
Cassady’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Her arguments replicate those she presented to the district court in
responding to the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The district court
thoroughly considered those arguments, as its Memorandum of Opinion reflects.
We find no error in the court’s analysis of the claims presented, and agree with its
disposition.
The judgment of the district court is accordingly
AFFIRMED.
4