Carbajal v. St. Anthony Central Hospital et al

Filing 318

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/13/15. Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Purpose of Disclosing Mr. Carbajal's Recent Diagnosis and Treatment for an Infection Related to His Catheterization, and for a Court Ordered Medical Examination # 314 is DENIED.(lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02257-REB-KLM
DEAN CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. ANTHONY CENTRAL HOSPITAL, a corporation,
CENTURA HEALTH, a corporation,
STEPHAN M. SWAN, Physician Assistant, in his official and individual capacities,
GREGORY J. ENGLUND, Registered Nurse, in his official and individual capacities,
MARCI L. HANSUE, Registered Nurse, in her official and individual capacities,
MICHAEL O’NEILL, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his official and
individual capacities,
JAY LOPEZ, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his official and individual
capacities,
LARRY BLACK, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his official and
individual capacities, and
APEX, a corporation,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery for the
Purpose of Disclosing Mr. Carbajal’s Recent Diagnosis and Treatment for an
Infection Related to His Catheterization, and for a Court Ordered Medical
Examination [#314] (the “Motion”). If the Court’s Recommendation [#317] regarding
Defendants’ pending Motions for Summary Judgment [#239, #241, #243] is adopted in full,
the only remaining claims will be for excessive force against the Denver Defendants when
they restrained Plaintiff during the catheterization procedure. In the Recommendation, the
Court found that there was not sufficient evidence of liability on the part of any Defendant
regarding the catheterization procedure itself. See, e.g., Recommendation at 21 (finding
that Plaintiff failed to provide the requisite expert opinion testimony to establish that the
catheterization procedure was not properly performed), 28 (finding that there was
insufficient evidence of causation with respect to the search and seizure claim against the
Denver Defendants). In the Motion [#314], Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery regarding
-1-

the alleged lasting effects of the catheterization procedure he underwent on August 28,
2010. He does not seek to reopen discovery with respect to any injuries sustained by him
from the allegedly excessive force used by the Denver Defendants to restrain him while the
procedure was performed by medical personnel. Under those circumstances, damages
arising from the catheterization procedure itself are irrelevant. For example:
If a plaintiff pleads unlawful arrest, but fails to plead excessive force, he is
entitled to reasonable damages from the unlawful arrest, but not damages
from any excessive force employed. This is because the claims of unlawful
arrest and excessive force are separate and independent. In the case before
us, Plaintiff pled excessive force and unlawful arrest separately. Therefore,
if Defendants’ use of force in effecting Plaintiff's unlawful arrest is found to be
reasonable, Plaintiff recovers his damages under his unlawful arrest claim.
If Plaintiff proves Defendants’ use of force in effecting Plaintiff's arrest was
excessive, Plaintiff recovers damages for any excessive force in addition to
the damages he received for the reasonable force employed in executing his
unlawful arrest.
Romero v. Story, 672 F.3d 880, 890 n.8 (10th Cir. 2012). Thus, “[i]f successful in proving
his excessive force claim, the plaintiff ‘is entitled to damages arising from that excessive
force.’” Romero v. Story, 672 F.3d 880, 890 (10th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Plaintiff
is not also entitled to damages from the catheterization procedure, which was not directly
performed by any of the Denver Defendants and for which the Court has found that
insufficient causation exists with respect to Plaintiff’s other claims. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#314] is DENIED.1
Dated: April 13, 2015

1

If the Recommendation is not adopted in full, Plaintiff may file a Motion to Reconsider with
respect to the present Motion [#314].

-2-