PHILADELPHIA – An inmate at the Bucks County Correctional Facility who alleged he was denied adequate and timely medical care when he suffered a broken heel after falling from the furniture in his cell, has settled his claims.
Aliksandr Poludzen of Warrington first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 8 versus Bucks County, PrimeCare Medical, David L. Kratz, James M. Coyne, John Doe Corrections Officers and John Doe PrimeCare Medical Providers, all of Doylestown.
“On or about Feb. 4, 2022, Bucks County contracted with PrimeCare to provide health care to all prisoners and pretrial detainees housed in the Bucks County Prison System. Bucks County, along with PrimeCare, were responsible for creating, implementing and enforcing policies, practices and procedures to ensure that all pretrial detainees and prisoners were provided proper medical and healthcare while in their custody. On or about Feb. 4, 2022, plaintiff Aliksandr Poludzen was a prisoner in the Bucks County Prison System, following criminal charges. During plaintiff’s incarceration, he fell from furniture in his cell. As a result of the fall, plaintiff fractured his heel,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff immediately complained and asked for medical attention. Plaintiff’s complaints and requests for medical care were denied. Eventually, John Doe medical staff defendants saw plaintiff, but his care was denied or delayed. John Doe medical staff defendants confirmed that plaintiff had a fracture in his heel. However, John Doe medical staff defendants did not provide any care to plaintiff. On or about March 7, 2022, approximately six weeks after the incident, plaintiff was removed from the facility and sent to Abington Hospital. Once at Abington Hospital, doctors immediately recognized the fracture and sent plaintiff immediately to surgery to repair plaintiff’s fractured heel.”
The suit added that as a result of the delay and denial of care at the Bucks County Prison, a “far more invasive procedure” was performed at Abington Hospital. This was due, allegedly, to the delay in care by the defendants, causing the plaintiff’s broken bone to begin to heal. Subsequently, the surgeon was forced to “re-break” the plaintiff’s heel, so he could adequately perform surgery to repair the bone.
“Based upon information and belief, had plaintiff been immediately treated for his fractured heel, a far less invasive surgery could have been conducted on plaintiff, and he could have made a full recovery. Plaintiff’s mobilization is limited as a result of the lack, denial, and delay of care by the defendants. As a result of the lack, denial, and delay of care by the defendants, the procedure performed on or about March 7, 2022, was far more invasive, and the prognosis for a full recovery is doubtful. As a direct and proximate cause of defendants’ actions and inactions, plaintiff suffered immense physical injuries. Defendants Katz and Coyne were the decision-makers for the Bucks County Prison at the time of the incident,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff hereby alleges defendants Katz and Coyne were personally involved in the decision-making that led to the averments contained in the aforementioned paragraphs. Bucks County and PrimeCare failed to create, implement, and enforce policies, practices and procedures to ensure that proper care was provided to the plaintiff. Bucks County and PrimeCare failed to ensure medical personnel properly examined inmates complaining of physical health complaints while incarcerated. Bucks County and PrimeCare failed to provide medical personnel and staff to treat inmates with physical complaints and medical conditions while living in the Bucks County Prison System.”
PrimeCare Medical answered the complaint on April 10, denying liability for the subject events in question.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. At all times material hereto, PrimeCare Medical, Inc. provided medical treatment which conformed to the applicable standard of care. Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate a deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition. Plaintiff’s claims and/or alleged losses, at most, demonstrate a difference of opinion as to medical treatment. Plaintiff’s claims and/or alleged losses may be limited and/or barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff’s claims and/or alleged losses are barred by the applicable statute of limitations,” the answer stated, in part.
“The alleged negligence and/or deliberate indifference of PrimeCare Medical, Inc. did not cause plaintiff to suffer any injury. At no time were plaintiff’s constitutional rights violated. At all times material hereto, PrimeCare Medical, Inc. is immune from suit. PrimeCare Medical, Inc.’s policies and procedures conform to or exceed national accreditation standards. Plaintiff may have been a non-compliant patient. Plaintiff’s claims and/or alleged losses may be limited or barred by the two schools of thought doctrine. PrimeCare Medical, Inc. cannot be vicariously liable for the alleged unconstitutional acts of its employees.”
The company added that at no time did it act in bad faith or in a willful, wanton, outrageous, reckless and/or malicious manner.
Defendants Kratz and Coyne filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 11, arguing that the plaintiff’s allegations lacked proper specificity.
“In Count I, plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the answering defendants failed to provide plaintiff with the necessary medical care despite his requests for the same, and that the answering defendants’ actions were ‘a direct and proximate cause’ of plaintiff’s injuries in violation of his Eighth Amendment constitutional rights. However, the complaint is void as to what, if any, facts of how any of the Bucks County defendants denied medical care. Simply saying plaintiff complained and asked for medical attention is insufficient. Plaintiff’s complaint lacks any reference or allegation that plaintiff complained directly to an employee of Bucks County. Therefore this count should be dismissed,” according to the motion.
“Further, in Count II, plaintiff alleges supervisory liability against answering defendants in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff admits that medical staff saw plaintiff after his fall. Further, they confirmed a fracture. Plaintiff, conveniently, leaves out how the medical staff was able to confirm a fracture. Additionally, plaintiff was taken to Abington Hospital. Plaintiff fails to allege what medical care that took place from the time of this diagnosis and his transport to the hospital. It is abundantly clear that plaintiff received medical attention regarding his heel.”
The dismissal motion posited that “a mere delay in treatment or even a misdiagnosis does not equate to ‘deliberate indifference” and that defendants Kratz and Coyne are subject to qualified immunity for any alleged civil rights violations.
UPDATE
On July 18, counsel for all parties stipulated to dismiss all claims against the defendants with prejudice, without costs and with each side bearing their own attorney’s fees, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
The very same day, a settlement in the case was announced, but its terms were not disclosed.
“It having been reported to the Court that the issues between the plaintiffs and defendants have been settled and pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is hereby ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs,” U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Harvey Bartle III said.
For counts of failure to protect and denial of medical care under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, supervisory liability and municipal liability under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, plus state law claims of negligence and vicarious liability, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000, delay damages, interest, attorney’s fees and allowable costs of suit, along with a trial by jury.
The plaintiff was represented by Brian J. Zeiger of Levin & Zeiger, in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by John R. Ninosky of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in Camp Hill, plus Keith J. Bidlingmaier of Bidlingmaier & Bidlingmaier, in Langhorne.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00505
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com