Estate of Gerardo Cruz-Sanchez et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 244

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Court finds in favor of Defendant United States of America, and against Plaintiffs the Estate of Gerardo Cruz-Sanchez and Paula Garcia Rivera on all claims alleged against said Defendant. Judgment is enter ed according to this order. Judgment is also entered for Defendant's CoreCivic and David Landin and against Plaintiffs the Estate of Gerardo Cruz-Sanchez and Paula Garcia Rivera on all claims pursuant to the jury verdict in that portion of this case. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 4/7/2022.(jrm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ESTATE OF GERARDO CRUZSANCHEZ, et al.,

13
14
15
16
17

v.

Case No.: 17-CV-0569-AJB-NLS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants

18
19

I.

20

The Action

21
22

This is a negligence action under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the wrongful death
of Gerardo Cruz-Sanchez (“Mr. Cruz-Sanchez” or “Decedent”) on February 29, 2016.

23

This case involves the arrest, incarceration, and eventual death of Gerardo

24

Cruz-Sanchez. On February 4, 2016, Mr. Cruz-Sanchez was arrested and detained by the

25

United States. Approximately a week later, after being detained at another federal detention

26

center, he was transferred to Otay Mesa Detention Center (“OMDC”), which is owned and

27

operated by CoreCivic pursuant to a correctional services agreement with the federal

28

government. During his incarceration at OMDC, Mr. Cruz-Sanchez received medical
1
17-CV-0569-AJB-NLS

1

evaluations and treatment from employees of the United States on February 11, February

2

12, February 14, February 16, February 17, and February 21, 2016. On February 26, 2016,

3

Mr. Cruz-Sanchez was sent to the hospital. On February 29, 2016, Mr. Cruz-Sanchez died.

4

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant United States failed to properly and timely diagnose

5

and treat Mr. Cruz-Sanchez.1

6

The United States contended that its ICE Health Service Corps (“IHSC”)

7

professionals met the standard of care in providing medical services to Decedent during

8

his stay at OMDC. The United States further asserted that Decedent’s non-attendance at

9

sick-call after his February 21, 2016 examination, during the critical period when his

10

pneumonia developed and rapidly progressed, was the cause of Decedent’s death.

11

II.

12

Jurisdiction and Venue

13

Federal jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Venue is proper in the

14

Southern District of California because all conduct giving rise to the claims alleged in the

15

complaint occurred in San Diego County.

16

III.

17

The Proceedings

18

The case proceeded to trial on March 22, 2022, and concluded on March 28, 2022.

19

The issues tried were set out in the Final Pretrial Order in this case. (ECF No. 171.)

20

Following the trial, and upon review of the testimony and documentary evidence, the

21

agreed facts, the arguments of counsel, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court now

22

makes the following findings based on the credible evidence and the reasonable inferences

23

to be drawn therefrom. These findings were made based upon a preponderance of the

24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs also allege that CoreCivic detention officer, Defendant Landin, interfered with Mr.
Cruz-Sanchez’s ability to receive medical care and that Defendant CoreCivic failed to train Defendant
Landin regarding his duty to provide Mr. Cruz-Sanchez access to adequate medical treatment. On
March 28, 2022, a jury unanimously found CoreCivic and Defendant Landin not liable for claims of
violation of the Bane Act, negligence, negligent supervision, and wrongful death. The evidence was
presented on both the case against CoreCivic and Landin and the United States jointly.
2
17-CV-0569-AJB-NLS

1

credible evidence. The liability standard is that of negligence in the medical context: a

2

medical professional who fails to use the level of skill, knowledge, and care in diagnosis

3

and treatment that other reasonably careful medical professionals would in similar

4

circumstances. This level of skill, knowledge, and care is sometimes referred to as “the

5

standard of care.” See CACI 400, 500 and 501.

6

The negligence elements beyond duty are breach, causation, and damages. Id.

7

Causation is determined using the “substantial factor test” under California Law. See

8

Mitchell v. Gonzales, 54 Cal. 3d 1041 (1991); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 431. “A

9

substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to

10

have contributed to the harm.” CACI 430.

11

IV.

12

Findings of Fact

13
14

Any finding of fact which is more appropriately a conclusion of law is to be deemed
as such.

15

The following facts were admitted by the parties 2 and are adopted by the Court:

16

1.

On February 11, 2016, Mr. Cruz-Sanchez was transferred from Metropolitan

17

Correctional Center (“MCC”) to OMDC where he was held until February 26,

18

2016.

19

2.

20

Between February 11 through February 26, 2016, Decedent and Alejandro
Chavez-Lopez (“Chavez”) were assigned to the J-pod housing unit at OMDC.

21

3.

22

While at OMDC, Decedent had medical encounters with PHS staff on February
11, February 12, February 14, February 16, February 17 and February 21, 2016.

23

4.

Decedent did not attend sick call after February 21, 2016.

24

5.

On February 26, 2016, Decedent was sent to the hospital.

25

6.

On February 29, 2016, Decedent died.

26
27
28

2

See ECF. No. 215.
3
17-CV-0569-AJB-NLS

1

The Court further finds, based on a preponderance of the credible evidence, the

2

following:

3

7.

On February 11, 2016, Decedent was medically screened by Nurse Ednacort.

4

Decedent was reported to say “I am good.” No reports of pain were elicited, nor

5

were past or current medical problems reported. Vital signs (temperature, heart

6

rate, respiration rate) were within normal limits. There were no complaints of

7

pain and he weighed in at 167 pounds. He was noted to have a BMI of 29.58

8

with 25 being the desired level. Physical exam was negative. The record notes a

9

negative chest x-ray on February 8, 2016 at the MCC. He was medically cleared

10
11

for custody.
8.

On February 12, 2016, Decedent was seen at his request by Nurse Wu with pain

12

in the right upper eyelid. No other symptoms were noted. Blood pressure was

13

elevated (145/84), but all other vitals were normal. Weight and BMI were

14

unchanged. A stye was diagnosed, instructions to manage the condition were

15

provided, medication for pain was ordered, and a follow up with a Physician’s

16

Assistant was scheduled.

17

9.

On February 14, 2016, Decedent was seen at his request by Nurse Alix for

18

complaints of “headache and sore throat” and “pain” for 2–3 days. No other

19

symptoms were noted. Blood pressure was elevated (141/75), weight and BMI

20

remained unchanged, and other vital signs were normal. An oxygen saturation

21

reading was taken and showed 96%, a reading within normal limits. Lungs were

22

clear on auscultation bilaterally. An Upper Respiratory Infection (“URI”) was

23

diagnosed and treated. Decedent was advised to return to sick call if symptoms

24

worsen, and Decedent verbalized understanding.

25

10. On February 16, 2016, Decedent was seen on sick call by Nurse Harris, with

26

complaints of cough, body aches, and sore throat for “one week.” All vitals were

27

normal save for the BMI and weight that were unchanged. Lungs were noted to

28

be “normal, clear to auscultation bilaterally, no wheezes, rales or rhonchi.” An
4
17-CV-0569-AJB-NLS

1

oxygen saturation reading was taken and showed 99%, a reading within normal

2

limits. Medication and instructions to manage the symptoms were given.

3

Decedent was advised to return to sick call if symptoms worsen, and Decedent

4

verbalized understanding.

5

11. Plaintiffs’ claim that a referral to a midlevel provider would be required at this

6

point under applicable guidelines, particularly the NCCH guideline that reads,

7

“When indicated, referral to the clinician’s clinic is made for the inmate to see a

8

physician or mid-level practitioner. In general, when a patient presents for

9

nonemergency health services more than two times with the same complaint,

10

and has not seen a physician, the patient receives an appointment to do so.” (Exh.

11

228 at 7.) No referral was made; however, Decedent saw a mid-level practitioner

12

the following day. The guideline reference to “When indicated” was explained

13

by Dr. Propst as allowing the medical professional some discretion in their

14

medical judgment. (See ECF No. 233 at 95.) No breach of the standard of care

15

resulted nor was any harm done.

16

12. On February 17, Physician Assistant Avalos conducted the follow-up

17

appointment for the stye. Decedent reported the stye was improving but reported

18

viral symptoms over the prior 3 days. The symptoms were noted as subjective

19

fever at night, chills, nausea through the day, lack of appetite, scratchy throat.

20

No other symptoms or complaints were noted by Decedent, including “night

21

sweats” or a “productive cough,” which Dr. Wilcox assumed existed but later

22

acknowledged were absent. (See ECF No. 234 at 85.) Indeed, Dr. Wilcox

23

projected the “night sweats” and the “cough” as his criticism of Avalos’ care and

24

claimed Avalos breached the standard of care by not taking an oxygen saturation

25

reading on this date or ordering other tests.

26

13. Exam records on February 17 also noted pain stated as “body aches” were

27

described by the patient. All vitals were normal save for the BMI and weight

28

that were unchanged. On physical exam, the lungs were noted as CTAB,
5
17-CV-0569-AJB-NLS

1

meaning “Lungs Clear to Auscultation Bilaterally.” Avalos assessed the

2

situation as an unspecified viral infection. No oxygen saturation reading was

3

taken given the lack of clinical indications. Decedent was advised to return to

4

sick call if symptoms worsen, and Decedent verbalized understanding.

5

14.

There were no clinical indications of pneumonia on February 17, 2016. Dr.

6

Wilcox testified that rapid respiration rate, sharp stabbing chest pains with deep

7

breathing, shortness of breath, and abnormal breathing sounds are the signs and

8

symptoms to look for, and that none were present on February 17, nor for that

9

matter on February 12th, 14th, or 16th. (See ECF No. 234 at 93–98.)

10

15.

On February 21, 2016, Decedent was seen by Nurse Byington for a health

11

assessment. The notes were entered two days later. All vitals were normal save

12

for the weight, now 166 (one pound less than all prior exams), and BMI was

13

not calculated. By appearance, Decedent was noted to be in “no acute distress,

14

well developed and well nourished.” While Decedent denied any current

15

medical concerns, he did report pain at 4 out of 10 without specificity as to

16

location. Physical exam was normal, and the lungs are noted as “clear to

17

auscultation bilaterally.” Decedent was “[e]ducated on the sick call process and

18

to follow-up via sick call as needed.” Dr. Lederman signed off on the note on

19

February 25, 2016. Decedent appeared to have improved from the URI for

20

which he was evaluated one week prior. That would be consistent with the

21

normal course of a URI.

22

16.

Of note, Plaintiff’s Expert Dr. Wilcox conceded on cross examination that

23

Nurse Byington did follow appropriate guidelines on February 21. (See ECF.

24

No. 234 at 105.)

25

17.

Defense Expert Dr. Vilke found no clinical signs or symptoms suggesting

26

pneumonia as of February 21, 2016, and further concluded that the medical

27

practitioners met the standard of care in treating Decedent. On the facts as

28

described herein, the Court agrees.
6
17-CV-0569-AJB-NLS

1

18.

On February 22, 2016, Decedent was visited by his attorney Jonathan Frank

2

and an interpreter Danielle Leyva. Frank and Leyva testified that Decedent

3

appeared ashen, pale, breathless, coughing, and very ill. Frank advised the

4

officer on duty, who summoned someone else, and Frank shared his concern.

5

This description of Decedent’s condition was a change when compared to the

6

clinical notes of the February 21, 2016 visit. According to the Pod Log Book

7

(Exh. 43), Decedent declined to go to dinner.

8

19.

9

until an emergency was called by Detention Officer Landin on February 26,

10
11

Decedent did not request sick call, summon help, or ask for assistance thereafter
2016.

20.

On February 26, 2016, now 5 days after the last medical visit, Decedent was

12

taken to the clinic by staff when Defendant Landin called for medical

13

assistance. His condition had clearly deteriorated since his last visit to the clinic.

14

Nurse Moreno testified to Decedent’s distress and noted that he had coughed

15

up blood-tinged mucous. Dr. Propst attended to Decedent and found him in

16

need of hospital transport. 911 was called and Decedent was transferred to the

17

hospital. Dr. Propst noted increased heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration.

18

The oxygen saturation rate was down to 90%, and oxygen was administered.

19

Lungs were clear to auscultation except in the right lateral zone where some

20

rales/squeak was noted on inspiration. Decedent’s weight and BMI were

21

unchanged at 167 and 29.58, respectively.

22

21.

23
24

There is no credible evidence that Decedent coughed up blood prior to February
26, 2016.

22.

Dr. Wilcox would expect pneumonia to have an onset of two to three weeks but

25

admits it can come on rapidly. (See ECF. No. 234 at 83.) Dr. Propst says

26

pneumonia can develop within hours or overnight, although it is more typically

27

2, 3, or 4 days. (See ECF. No. 233 at 57.) Dr. Vilke testified consistent with Dr.

28

Propst.
7
17-CV-0569-AJB-NLS

1
2

23.

A consultation by Dr. Reznik on February 26, 2016, noted on physical exam

3

that, other than the fact he was quite sick, Decedent appeared as a “well

4

nourished and well appearing man.”

5

24.

As noted above, on February 29, 2016, Decedent died from sepsis secondary to

6

pneumonia and organ failure. No medical negligence was alleged concerning

7

the hospitalization and care provided from February 26, 2016 to the date of

8

Decedent’s death. As a result, detailed findings of fact concerning the clinical

9

course in the hospital are unnecessary.

10

25.

Detainees in the OMDC could access medical by putting in for sick call on a

11

sign-up sheet available in the morning in their Pod. There were also medical

12

request forms available in the Pod generally, and a detainee could approach a

13

guard with a request for medical. The guards did not provide medical care. Their

14

role was to assist the detainees in gaining access to medical services as noted.

15

26.

The Pod Log recorded activities and comings and goings for each day in the

16

Pod. A review of the log shows that Decedent’s Pod had a constant presence of

17

detention officers who made security checks of the pod every thirty minutes

18

during Decedent’s stay, and that a variety of other detention and government

19

representatives were present at times. A review of the log shows visitors coming

20

and going for informal security checks, cell searches, taking/returning detainees

21

to medical, admission of new and release of pending detainees.

22

27.

23
24

The Log also shows that except for dinner on February 22, 2016, Decedent was
signed in and out of his Pod for meals.

28.

Statements by Alejandro Chavez concerning Decedent’s lack of appetite and

25

not taking meals for days are contradicted by the log, and the multiple records

26

regarding Decedent’s stable weight readings from February 11, 2016 to

27

February 26, 2022. Plaintiff’s medical expert acknowledged that not eating for

28

a week would lead to weight loss. (ECF No. 234 at 84.)
8
17-CV-0569-AJB-NLS

1

29.

The evidence is clear that Decedent decided not to return to the clinic for care

2

despite his familiarity with the protocol, which he had utilized previously, and

3

the instructions of the medical staff to return if symptoms worsened. The

4

suggestion, based on statements of witness Chavez, is that Decedent was

5

unhappy with the care he was receiving as he did not feel it was doing him any

6

good. While Chavez is hardly credible, given his financial motive in this case,

7

the inference that this was why the sick calls stopped is logical. Reference to

8

Decedent not wanting to go to medical was also referenced in the post incident

9

mortality review report. (See Exh. 224 at 004.)

10

30.

Decedent’s failure to seek out further medical care as symptoms worsened on

11

February 22, 2016, was a substantial factor in his deteriorating condition and

12

ultimate development of pneumonia, sepsis, and multiple organ failure that

13

could not be successfully treated.

14

31.

The evidence does not support a pneumonia developing in the Decedent for two

15

to three weeks. (See Wilcox, ECF. No. 234 at 52.) Decedent had a URI which

16

was properly treated and better by February 21. The medical records and log

17

entries belie that Decedent was as sick as witness Chavez claims. Chavez lacks

18

credibility for many reasons, above all the wealth of inconsistent testimony in

19

opposition. That Mr. Cruz-Sanchez contracted pneumonia is undeniable.

20

Regrettably, he chose not to access medical care which might have saved his

21

life.

22

V.

23

Conclusions of Law

24

The Court finds that the medical providers are not responsible for Mr.

25

Cruz-Sanchez’s tragic death due to sepsis, pneumonia, and organ failure. There was no

26

failure to diagnose and treat. The medical clinic staff provided reasonable and appropriate

27

medical care, but Mr. Cruz-Sanchez decided not to return to the clinic when his condition

28

suddenly changed and rapidly deteriorated during the five days from February 22 to
9
17-CV-0569-AJB-NLS

1

February 26, 2016. Decedent had repeatedly been advised to return to the clinic if his

2

symptoms worsened, and he verbalized his understanding each time. Regrettably, he did

3

not follow the medical professional’s advice.

4
5

The United States medical staff satisfied the standard of care in providing care to
Decedent, and none of their actions were a substantial factor in bringing harm to him.

6

VI.

7

Conclusion

8

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds in favor of Defendant United States of

9

America, and against Plaintiffs the Estate of Gerardo Cruz-Sanchez and Paula Garcia

10

Rivera on all claims alleged against said Defendant. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter

11

judgment according to this order. The Clerk of Court is also directed to enter judgment for

12

Defendant’s CoreCivic and David Landin and against Plaintiffs the Estate of Gerardo

13

Cruz-Sanchez and Paula Garcia Rivera on all claims pursuant to the jury verdict in that

14

portion of this case.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2022

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
17-CV-0569-AJB-NLS