Gardner v. Naphcare, Inc. et al
Filing
22
ORDER - It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation ECFNo. 21 is adopted in part and rejected in part. (See order for details). It is further ordered that Naphcare's Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 8 is gra nted in part and denied in part as specified in this order. (See order for details). It is further ordered that Defendants Michael Buehler and Michael Tover are dismissed from this action with prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/21/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
PAUL GARDNER,
7
8
9
v.
Plaintiff,
ORDER
NAPHCARE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
10
11
Case No. 3:24-cv-00277-MMD-CLB
I.
SUMMARY
12
Plaintiff Paul Gardner filed a complaint alleging that during his incarceration at
13
Washoe County Detention Facility (“WCDF”), medical-provider Defendants’ 1 violated his
14
civil rights under the United States Constitution, the Nevada Constitution, and the
15
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (ECF No. 1 (“Complaint”).) Gardner also brings
16
general and professional negligence claims. (Id.) Defendant Naphcare, Inc. filed a motion
17
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 2 (ECF No. 8 (“Motion”).) Before
18
the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
19
Carla L. Baldwin, recommending that the Motion be granted as to Gardner’s negligence
20
claims (claims one, two and three), and denied as to his constitutional and ADA claims
21
(claims four and five). (ECF No. 21.) Objections to the R&R were due October 18, 2024.
22
(See id.) To date, no objections to the R&R have been filed. For the reasons explained
23
below, the Court will adopt the recommendations in the R&R with respect to the majority
24
25
26
27
28
1Defendants are Naphcare, Inc. (“Naphcare”), Michael Trebian, Michael Tover,
Michael Behler, Frank Akpati, Dr. Larry Williamson, and Washoe County. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff refers to Trebian, Tover, and Buehler collectively as “Nurse Michael Doe,”
asserting that the true identity of the individual responsible for the conduct at issue was
withheld. (Id.)
2Gardner responded (ECF No. 13) and Naphcare replied (ECF No. 14).
1
of Gardner’s claims. However, the Court will reject the R&R’s recommendation to dismiss
2
Plaintiff’s professional negligence claims and will allow those claims to proceed.
3
II.
DISCUSSION 3
4
Plaintiff’s claims arise from an incident in July 2022, when Gardner alleges that
5
Naphcare’s contracted medical providers at WCDF administered hydrogen peroxide
6
instead of saline solution for his scleral contact lenses, leading to significant eye damage,
7
continuing pain and worsening vision. (ECF No. 1.) Because there was no objection to
8
the R&R, the Court is not required to conduct de novo review. See United States v.
9
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate
10
judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file
11
objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original). Nevertheless,
12
the Court will consider the recommendations in the R&R as to each of Naphcare’s
13
arguments for dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (providing that a district judge “may
14
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
15
the magistrate judge”).
16
Judge Baldwin first recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s general
17
negligence claim because the claim sounds entirely in professional negligence. (ECF No.
18
21 at 5.) The Court agrees that, because the negligence alleged involves healthcare
19
providers rendering services—and given that Gardner does not otherwise address
20
Naphcare’s argument on this point—dismissal of the general negligence claim is
21
appropriate. See Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hosp. of Las Vegas LLC, 550 P.3d 825,
22
831 (Nev. 2024).
23
Judge Baldwin next recommends that the Court dismiss Gardner’s professional
24
negligence and negligent supervision claims as time-barred by the one-year statute of
25
limitations in medical malpractice actions. (ECF No. 21 at 5-7.) See NRS § 41A.097(2)
26
(“[A]n action for injury or death against a provider of health care may not be commenced
27
28
3The Court incorporates by reference Judge Baldwin’s description of the pertinent
procedural and factual background provided in the R&R and adopts this background to
the extent it is consistent with the Court’s findings in this order.
2
1
more than 3 years after the date of the injury or 1 year after the plaintiff discovers or
2
through use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever occurs
3
first.”); Yafchak v. S. Las Vegas Med. Invs.,LLC, 519 P.3d 37, 40 (Nev. 2022) (providing
4
that when the underlying tortfeasor is liable for professional negligence, NRS § 41A
5
applies to negligent hiring, training, and supervision claims). Here, the incident leading to
6
Plaintiff’s eye injuries occurred in July 2022, and the Complaint was filed nearly two years
7
later, in June 2024. Gardner argues, however, that the one-year limitation period should
8
be tolled because he repeatedly requested his medical records in and after August 2022,
9
and Naphcare intentionally withheld those records until Gardner’s 2024 release from
10
WCDF, knowing that Gardner could attempt to file suit. (ECF No. 13 at 4-8.) See NRS §
11
41A.097(4) (providing that the “time limitation is tolled for any period during which the
12
provider of health care has concealed any act, error or omission upon which the action is
13
based and which is known or through the use of reasonable diligence should have been
14
known to the provider of health care”).
15
Interpreting the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff at the motion to
16
dismiss stage, the Court declines to determine as a matter of law that NRS § 41A.097(4)’s
17
tolling provision does not apply, and accordingly denies Naphcare’s Motion with respect
18
to the professional negligence claims. See Winn v. Sunrise Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 277 P.3d
19
458, 462 (Nev. 2012) (noting that accrual date for the one-year limitation is generally a
20
question of fact, and the Court may determine the date as a matter of law only when the
21
evidence irrefutably shows the date on which a plaintiff was placed on inquiry notice). In
22
order to toll the limitation period, a plaintiff must show that (1) the provider “intentionally
23
withheld information,” and (2) “that this withholding would have hindered a reasonably
24
diligent plaintiff from procuring an expert affidavit.” Kushnir v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 495
25
P.3d 137, 139 (Nev. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Winn, 277 P.3d at 464). Gardner asserts that
26
because WCDF and Naphcare prevented him from accessing his medical records for
27
more than a year, he could not identify the specific providers who mistakenly gave him
28
hydrogen peroxide, nor confirm the exact substance involved or the mechanism of the
3
1
injury in order to decide how to pursue legal action. (ECF Nos. 1 at 8-9; 13 at 2, 4-8; 13-
2
1.) Naphcare does not appear to argue there was a justification for refusing to provide the
3
records, or to assert that any withholding was unintentional. (ECF Nos. 8, 14.) And while
4
it is true that the immediate nature of Gardner’s injury may make the alleged negligence
5
at issue here more easily discernable to a layperson than in cases involving other kinds
6
of medical injuries, the Court finds that Gardner has plausibly supported that lack of
7
access to any documented medical details about the incident could hinder a reasonably
8
diligent plaintiff’s ability to obtain an expert affidavit. See Kushnir, 495 P.3d (holding that
9
the one-year statute of limitations period began to run against a physician who caused a
10
colon perforation during a diagnostic procedure when an expert received the patient’s
11
complete medical records necessary to produce expert affidavit); Winn, 277 P.3d at 462-
12
64 (noting that a plaintiff must establish that they acted with “reasonable diligence” to
13
discover the alleged negligence).
14
Naphcare argues, in effect, that Gardner should have filed a complaint without his
15
medical records and simply moved to amend later. The Court finds this argument
16
insufficient to justify dismissal, particularly given that a premature dismissal could allow
17
Defendants to unfairly benefit from improper conduct. As Gardner notes, without medical
18
records, he would have had to choose blindly between pursuing a claim under Nevada’s
19
res ipsa provision, which sets a rebuttable presumption of negligence under certain
20
circumstances, or bringing a claim requiring an expert affidavit without the benefit of the
21
rebuttable presumption. See NRS § 41A.100(1)(c); NRS § 41A.100(3). While the date of
22
inquiry notice does not depend on identification of all conceivable legal theories, discovery
23
of a legal injury generally means discovery of, at minimum, all facts supporting the
24
elements of a claim—that is, discovery of “both the fact of damage suffered and the
25
realization that the cause was the health care provider's negligence.” Siragusa v. Brown,
26
971 P.2d 801, 807 (Nev. 1998) (quoting Massey v. Litton, 669 P.2d 248, 251 (Nev. 1983)).
27
See also Winn, 277 P.3d at 464 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 538(2)(a) (1977))
28
(noting that a concealed matter is “material” if “a reasonable man would attach importance
4
1
to its existence or nonexistence in determining his choice of action”). In addition,
2
concealment of the identity of a tortfeasor may delay accrual of a discovery-based statute
3
of limitations when a plaintiff exercises due diligence in ascertaining the identity through
4
other means, see Siragusa, 971 P.2d at 807 (1998), and it is not apparent here to what
5
extent Gardner attempted to ascertain relevant information in spite of the alleged
6
concealment. Finally, although Gardner does not address this point in his opposition, his
7
Complaint alleges professional negligence “[d]uring the course of treatment,” and
8
includes numerous factual allegations going to Defendants’ failure to adequately respond
9
to his eye injury or provide follow-up care in the months and years after the June 2022
10
incident, causing additional damage. (ECF No. 1 at 4-8, 13-14.) This further complicates
11
a determination of the date on which a legal injury accrued. In short, the Court finds it
12
would be premature to conclude that Plaintiff’s professional negligence claims against
13
Naphcare are time-barred, and accordingly rejects the R&R’s recommendation for
14
dismissal of these claims. 4
15
Judge Baldwin next recommends that the Court deny Naphcare’s Motion with
16
respect to Plaintiff’s municipal liability and ADA claims. (ECF No. 21 at 8-9.) The Court
17
adopts these recommendations. As to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment municipal liability
18
claim, Gardner adequately alleges that as an a WCDF contractor, Naphcare’s “policy or
19
custom was to prohibit inmates from receiving medical equipment or modalities [such as
20
eye patches, without considering objective factors].” (ECF No. 1 at 17.) See also City of
21
Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989); Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social
22
Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). As to Plaintiff’s ADA disability discrimination claim, the
23
Court finds that Naphcare is a proper defendant under Title II as a result of its status as
24
a private entity contracting with Washoe County. See Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d
25
1019, 1023 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)) (“The ADA broadly “defines
26
27
28
4The Court notes that Naphcare’s alleged concealment alone may not toll the
statute of limitations as to individual medical care providers, because tolling is appropriate
only with regard to a defendant who participates in the alleged problematic conduct. See
Winn, 277 P.3d at 464. However, because none of the individual defendants have been
served, the Court will not address the claims against them in this order.
5
1
‘public entity’ as ‘any State or local government [and] any department, agency, special
2
purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government.’”).
3
Accordingly, the Court will adopt the R&R and allow these claims to proceed.
4
Finally, the Court adopts Judge Baldwin’s recommendation to dismiss Defendants
5
Michael Buehler and Michael Tover, because Gardner states he has confirmed the true
6
identity of “Nurse Michael Doe” as Michael Trebian and has therefore agreed to dismiss
7
the two other “Michaels” originally named in the Complaint. (ECF Nos. 13 at 6 n. 3; 21 at
8
9.)
9
III.
CONCLUSION
10
The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several
11
cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and
12
determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome here.
13
It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
14
No. 21) is adopted in part and rejected in part. The R&R is rejected as to the
15
recommendations to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for negligent training, supervision, and
16
retention (claim two) and professional negligence (claim three) and adopted as to all other
17
recommendations.
18
It is further ordered that Naphcare’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is granted in
19
part and denied in part as specified in this order. The Motion is granted as to Plaintiff’s
20
general negligence claim (claim one). The Motion is denied as to all other claims. Plaintiff
21
may proceed with his claims for negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention (claim
22
two), professional negligence (claim three), municipal liability under the U.S. and Nevada
23
Constitutions (claim four) and ADA discrimination (claim five).
24
25
26
It is further ordered that Defendants Michael Buehler and Michael Tover are
dismissed from this action with prejudice.
DATED THIS 21st Day of November 2024.
27
28
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?