Adams et al v. Melnick, D.O. et al

Filing 178

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Re: 173 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Defendant Melnick's and Defendant Department of Corrections' Motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 are DENIED. So Ordered by Senior Judge Mary M. Lisi on 6/21/2016. (Feeley, Susan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
JERRY ADAMS and CIRA GONZALEZ
Plaintiffs,
v.

C.A. No. 13-802-ML

SIMON MELNICK, D.O.; ASHBEL T. WALL,
individually and in his official capacity
as director of the Rhode Island Department
of Correction;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS JOHN AND/OR JANE DOE, Alias;
JOHN AND/OR JANE DOE, M.D., Alias;
JOHN AND/OR JANE DOE, RN, Alias; and
JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Alias
Defendants
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On June 17, 2016, following a five-day jury trial in this
negligence case, the jury found in favor of the Defendants. After
the Plaintiff rested his case, both Defendants, Dr. Simon Melnick
and the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (“DOC”) made oral
motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 of the
Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure.

Based

on

the

Plaintiff’s

testimony given with respect to Dr. Melnick, the Court denied Dr.
Melnick’s motion.
It does not appear from the record that Dr. Melnick renewed
his motion after the Defendants rested. However, the Court is of
the opinion that, even after submission of all evidence in this
case, when the Plaintiff’s testimony was considered “in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party,” the jury could have decided
in the Plaintiff’s favor. Marcano Rivera v. Turabo Med. Ctr.

1

P'ship, 415 F.3d 162, 167 (1st Cir.2005). Weighing the differing
versions of Plaintiff’s encounter with Dr. Melnick was primarily a
credibility determination, not a matter of law and, as such, it
fell under the province of the jury.
The Court took the DOC’s motion under advisement and the DOC
supplemented its motion with a written memorandum (Dkt. No. 173)
and renewed its motion at the conclusion of the trial. In its
memorandum, the DOC took the position that, in order to prove his
negligence claim as to a DOC-employed nurse, the Plaintiff was
required to put forth expert testimony to establish deviations from
the standard of care applicable to nurses.
In his testimony, the Plaintiff related, inter alia, that he
went to the “medline,” and requested help from the nurse. According
to the Plaintiff, he was in significant discomfort at that time and
told the nurse, “I need to see a doctor.” Plaintiff testified that
the nurse refused his request; that he called her a “bitch;” and
that she provided him with ice to alleviate his discomfort. On her
part, the nurse testified that she did not recollect meeting Adams
that day; that she would have remembered if an inmate had presented
with priapism; and that no inmate had ever called her a bitch. The
discrepancies

between

the

two

versions

also

called

for

a

credibility assessment, which was a matter for the jury and did not
require the assistance of an expert. When viewed in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could have properly

2

decided in the Plaintiff’s favor. See Peguero-Moronta v. Santiago,
464 F.3d 29, 45 (1st Cir. 2006).
Conclusion
Dr. Melnick’s motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 is DENIED. The DOC’s motion for judgment as
a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary M. Lisi
Mary M. Lisi
Senior United States District Judge
June 22, 2016

3