Christopher Seldon v. Dignity Health et al

Filing 49

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 21 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Site Inspection. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTOPHER SELDON,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

DIGNITY HEALTH, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL SITE
INSPECTION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 40, 46, 48

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

CASE NO. 4:16-cv-2454 YGR

12

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to permit plaintiff to

13

conduct a joint site inspection of all areas of defendants’ premises1 which plaintiff (i) visited

14

during his previous hospitalization in 2014 or (ii) could visit as an adult male patient in future

15

hospitalizations. (Dkt. No. 21.) On August 18, 2017, this Court ordered defendants to “provide a

16

limited site walk-through (not to exceed four hours) to identify the elements not included in the

17

previous remediation plan[,]” namely the “existing Consent Decree approved by Judge Karlton” in

18

Kemper v. Catholic Healthcare West, 2:06-cv-00295-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 204, Ex. A,

19

Facility Modification Plan for St. Mary’s Medical Center San Francisco (the “FMP”). The parties

20

conducted the limited walkthrough on December 6, 2017, and have submitted additional

21

information and briefing with regard to the elements not included in the FMP.

22

Having considered the information submitted, the arguments of the parties, and for the

23

reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART plaintiff’s motion and ORDERS defendants to

24

permit plaintiff to conduct a joint site inspection of the following areas which plaintiff visited

25

during his previous hospitalization in 2014 or could visit as an adult male patient in future

26
27
28

1

The Court understands the buildings at issue are (i) 450 Stanyan Street; (ii) 1 Shrader
Street; and (iii) 2250 Hayes Street. Plaintiff has agreed to “forgo any inspection” of defendants’
other premises, namely 2200 and 2235 Hayes Street. (Dkt. No. 46 at fn.1.)

1

hospitalization: (i) patient rooms other than those used for oncology, orthopedic, or surgery

2

patients (in all three locations) and (ii) access ramps and paths of travel but only with regard to the

3

main hospital (“450 Stanyan Street”) and the building containing defendants’ Cancer Center,

4

Primary Care Physician Offices, and Chapel (“2250 Hayes Street”). Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED

5

as to the balance, including (i) oncology, orthopedic, and surgery patient rooms; (ii) access ramps

6

and paths of travel with regard to the main office building (“1 Shrader Street”), (iii) elevators, (iv)

7

stairwells, and (v) allegedly “Inadequately Addressed Areas” (Dkt. No. 46 at 3) in the FMP

8

including nurses’ stations, restrooms, drinking fountains, and doors.
The record reflects that the only patient rooms covered by the Kemper FMP are those used

10

for oncology, orthopedic, or surgery patients. (FMP at Nos. 1-21, 59-77, 298-314.) Patient rooms

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

used for other purposes do not appear to be covered by the FMP. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a

12

full site inspection of rooms other than those used for oncology, orthopedic, or surgery patients.

13

Next, the FMP indicates that corrections have been agreed upon for 1 Shrader Street with

14

regard to access ramps and paths of travel. (Id. at Nos. 1054-1069.) However, no corrections are

15

indicated for 450 Stanyan Street or 2250 Hayes Street. Accordingly, plaintiff’s potential claims

16

with regard to these buildings do not appear to be preempted by Kemper. Plaintiff is therefore

17

entitled to a full site inspection of access ramps and paths of travel for 450 Stanyan Street or 2250

18

Hayes Street.

19

By contrast, elevators for all three buildings at issue were addressed in the Kemper FMP.

20

(Id. at Nos. 1-21, 59-77, 298-314.) Exterior stairwell areas were similarly addressed. (Id. at Nos.

21

29-31, 57-58.) In light of the agreed upon corrections with regard to elevators at all three

22

facilities, the Court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to an full site inspection of interior stairwells

23

which are not on the accessible path of travel.

24

Finally, plaintiff offers no authority in support of his position that he is entitled to a full

25

site inspection of areas which he contends were “inadequately addressed” by the Kemper FMP.

26

These elements have already been reviewed by the parties in Kemper and a FMP regarding such

27

elements was approved by Judge Karlton. Therefore plaintiff’s claims with regard to these

28

elements are preempted and the Court lacks jurisdiction to order a site inspection with regard to
2

1

such areas.

2

This terminates Dkt. No. 21.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: January 25, 2018

5
6
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3