PITTSBURGH – The United States of America has tentatively settled claims that substandard care provided by a Veterans Administration hospital in Pittsburgh, led to the wrongful death of a 56 year-old man at the facility.
The Estate of Larry Caruthers, Marquell Atkinson (Beneficiary of the Estate of Larry Caruthers and in his own right) of Coal Center and Lanaira Bowman-Caruthers (Beneficiary of the Estate of Larry Caruthers and in her own right) of Detroit, Mich. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 18 versus the United States of America.
“On or about July 2016, deceased plaintiff (age 56 at the time) came under the care and/or supervision and remained under the care and/or supervision of defendant at its above-stated hospital and/or medical care facility until his below-stated passing,” the suit said.
“As deceased plaintiff remained under the care and/or supervision of defendant, deceased plaintiff experienced and/or suffered the following: Hemiparesis, neurogenic bladder, hypernatremia, urosepsis/septic shock, nutrient deficits, oral secretions, tachycardia, aspiration pneumonia, osteomyelitis, retrocardiac opacification, hematochezia, rectal ulcers, bradycardia, bowel obstruction, proteus bacteremia, pressure ulcers, holecystitis, kidney disease and colitis.”
The suit added the decedent also suffered the following symptoms associated with those conditions: Continuous mucous secretions, nausea/vomiting, chronic infections, chronic fevers, lethargy, weight loss, anemia, chronic coughing and internal bleeding.
“On Dec. 30, 2019, deceased plaintiff passed away while under the care and/or supervision of defendant, at its above-stated hospital and/or medical care facility. Defendant indicated that deceased plaintiff passed away as a result of a stroke, with a secondary diagnosis of pressure ulcers. It is believed and therefore averred that deceased plaintiff passed away as a result of the conditions and/or symptoms and/or effects (individually and/or in combination) identified above, resulting in deceased plaintiff suffering a fatal stroke and/or other major organ failure,” the suit stated.
“It is believed and therefore averred that deceased plaintiff experienced and/or suffered the conditions identified and the resulting fatal stroke and/or other major organ failure, and the resulting damages pursuant to [state law], as a result of defendant being grossly negligent and/or reckless and/or negligent and/or careless and/or failing to adhere to acceptable standards in its care and/or supervision and/or treatment of deceased plaintiff.”
A March 20 answer to the complaint admitted that an administrative claim was received on April 17, 2021 and denied July 26, 2022. However, the defendants denied that administrative claims were filed by all plaintiffs listed in the complaint.
“Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs’ own negligence is the sole and/or contributory cause of the occurrence set forth in the complaint. Plaintiffs are therefore barred from recovery. The alleged injuries and damages of plaintiffs were not proximately caused by a negligent, careless or wrongful act or omission of the defendant, United States. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2675(b), plaintiffs are prohibited from seeking an amount over the amount asserted in her administrative claim. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a jury trial against the United States in an FTCA action. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate any alleged damages and are therefore barred from recovery. The concurrent acts of others, and not of the defendant United States, were the proximate cause of the occurrence set forth in plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs are, therefore, barred from recovery. The acts of others, and not defendant United States, were the sole and proximate intervening and/or superseding cause of the occurrence set forth in plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs are therefore barred from recovery,” the answer’s additional affirmative defenses stated.
“Plaintiffs’ damages against the United States are limited to the damages recoverable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1346 (b), 2671 et seq. Attorney’s fees are governed by the statute. Any injuries, loss, or damage sustained by plaintiffs were caused in whole or in part by the plaintiffs’ culpable conduct and any recovery by plaintiffs must be reduced proportionately by the percentage of such culpable conduct. Plaintiffs’ injuries or damages, if any, were caused by the negligence or wrongful acts of third parties that were not under the control of the defendant, United States. Plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of pre-judgment interest as to the United States. Plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of post-judgment interest as to the United States. Plaintiffs shall not be entitled to recover damages for past medical expenses or past lost earnings for which they have received payment from any collateral source except to the extent permitted by 40 P.S. Section 1303.508. If defendant United States was negligent, which is expressly denied, others were also negligent. Defendant may thus only be held liable for its proportionate share of the fault, if any. Plaintiff Lanaira Bowman-Caruthers failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.”
UPDATE
On July 13, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Nora Barry Fischer reported that the case been resolved through settlement, with terms of the settlement not disclosed.
“The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above-captioned case has been resolved and that the only matters remaining to be completed are the preparation and execution of a written settlement agreement, payment of the settlement proceeds, if any, and the submission of a stipulation for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). No further action is required by the Court at this time. The Clerk shall mark the above-captioned case closed,” Fischer stated.
“Nothing contained in this order shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this action, and, that should further proceedings therein become necessary or desirable, either party may initiate them in the same manner as if this order had not been entered. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction in this matter to consider any issue arising during the period when settlement is being finalized, including, but not limited to, enforcing settlement.”
For counts of negligence, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, court costs, any other damages allowed by law and any other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Andrew O. Stiffler of Mielnicki & Stiffler and Michael P. Petro of Seewald Mielnicki & Petro, both in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Michael C. Colville of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00088
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com