Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Crowson v. Washington County

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

July 19, 2019

MARTIN CROWSON, Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH, CORY C. PULSIPHER, acting Sheriff of Washington County, JUDD LAROWE, and MICHAEL JOHNSON, Defendants.

          ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION

          TENA CAMPBELL U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         While an inmate at the Washington County Purgatory Correctional Facility, Plaintiff Martin Crowson began suffering from symptoms of toxic metabolic encephalopathy, a degenerative neurologic disorder caused by exposure to toxic substances. Rather give him medical care, medical staff wrongly assumed that he was withdrawing from drugs or alcohol and placed him in an observation cell for seven days without treatment. Mr. Crowson brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the lack of medical care violated the Eight Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, as applied to him as a pre-hearing detainee by the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining Defendants in the case-Michael Johnson (a nurse), Dr. Judd LaRowe, and Washington County-have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons below, the court denies their motions in most respects.

         BACKGROUND FACTS

         This case arises from Mr. Crowson's stay in the Washington County Purgatory Correctional Facility (the Jail) from June 11, 2014, when he was booked for a parole violation, until July 1, 2014, when he was taken to the hospital for what would be diagnosed as metabolic encephalopathy.

         On June 17, 2014, Mr. Crowson was placed in solitary confinement, known as the “A Block, ” because of a disciplinary charge. On the morning of June 25, while still in solitary confinement, Jail Deputy Brett Lyman noticed that Mr. Crowson was acting slow and lethargic. The deputy alerted Defendant Michael Johnson. As a registered nurse, Nurse Johnson could not formally diagnose and treat Mr. Crowson. His role was to assess inmates and communicate with medical staff who could make diagnoses-in this case, Jon Worlton, a physician assistant (PA), and Judd LaRowe, the Jail's physician.

         Nurse Johnson evaluated Mr. Crowson that morning. He noted normal vital signs, but also memory loss: Mr. Crowson could not remember the kind of work he did before his arrest. Nurse Johnson instructed jail deputies to move Mr. Crowson to a medical observation cell, and entered a request in the medical recordkeeping system for PA Worlton to conduct a psychological evaluation.

         While being moved to the medical observation cell, another deputy, Fred Keil, noticed that Mr. Crowson appeared unusually confused. Deputy Keil performed a body cavity search on Mr. Crowson; when ordered to re-dress himself, Mr. Crowson first put on his pants, then put his underwear on over his pants.

         Nurse Johnson checked Mr. Crowson again that afternoon. He observed that Mr. Crowson's pupils were dilated but reactive to light, and that Mr. Crowson appeared alert and oriented. He left the Jail at the end of his shift without conducting further physical or mental assessments, and without contacting Dr. LaRowe. PA Worlton never received Nurse Johnson's request for a psychological examination and, according to the Jail's medical recordkeeping system, no medical personnel checked on Mr. Crowson for the next two days.

         Nurse Johnson returned to work on June 28 and visited Mr. Crowson in the early afternoon. Mr. Crowson seemed confused and disoriented and had elevated blood pressure. He gave one-word answers to Nurse Johnson's questions, and understood, but could not follow, an instruction to take a deep breath. After his visit, Nurse Johnson relayed his observations to Dr. LaRowe by telephone. Dr. LaRowe ordered that Mr. Crowson undergo a chest x-ray and a blood test. The blood test, known as a complete blood count, could have detected an acid-base imbalance in Mr. Crowson's blood, a symptom of encephalopathy.

         Mr. Crowson never received the x-ray or the blood test. Nurse Johnson tried to draw Mr. Crowson's blood on June 28, but couldn't because of scarring on Mr. Crowson's veins and because Mr. Crowson would not hold still. Nurse Johnson reported his unsuccessful attempt to Dr. LaRowe, who made no further attempts to diagnose Mr. Crowson.

         On the morning of June 29, Nurse Johnson again took Mr. Crowson's vital signs and noted an elevated heart rate. He also observed noted in the medical recordkeeping system that Mr. Crowson was still acting dazed and confused, and was experiencing delirium tremens, a symptom of alcohol withdrawal. He again reported his observations to Dr. LaRowe, who prescribed Librium and Ativan-medicines used to treat substance withdrawal-and instructed Nurse Johnson to administer a dose of Ativan. An hour later, Nurse Johnson checked on Mr. Crowson, who was sleeping, and noted that his vital signs had returned to normal.

         Nurse Johnson visited Mr. Crowson again that afternoon. He noted that Mr. Crowson was better able to verbalize his thoughts and that his vital signs remained stable. But Mr. Crowson again reported memory loss, telling Nurse Johnson that he could not remember the last five days. Nurse Johnson, who still assumed that that Mr. Crowson was suffering from substance withdrawal, told Mr. Crowson that he was in a medical observation cell, and that he would begin taking medication to help his condition.

         The following day, Nurse Ryan Borrowman was assigned to the medical holding area. Nurse Borrowman first saw Mr. Crowson on July 1 and noted that his physical movements were delayed and that he struggled to focus and would lose his train of thought. As Nurse Borrowman recounted in his declaration, “[d]ue to the severity of [Mr. Crowson's] symptoms and the length of time he had been in a medical holding cell, I immediately called Dr. LaRowe for immediate medical care.” (Decl. of Ryan Borrowman ¶ 9 (ECF No. 67).) Dr. LaRowe ordered Nurse Borrowman to send Mr. Crowson to the hospital, and Mr. Crowson was transported to the Dixie Regional Medical Center.

         The parties' summary judgment briefs allude to, but do not explain, Mr. Crowson's circumstances before and after his incarceration at the Jail. The amended complaint refers to a hospitalization at Dixie Regional Medical Center “a few weeks before being arrested and detained” at the Jail, and states cryptically that medical history “would have revealed to Facility staff that Crowson should not have been given any drug categorized as a benzodiazepine” (such as Librium). (Am. Compl. ¶ 37 (ECF No. 7).) The hospitalization appears to have been the result of a heroin overdose. (Dep. of Martin Crowson at 5:15-6:19, 49:19-22 (ECF No. 66-2) [hereinafter “Crowson Dep.”].)

         The parties also do not discuss the after-effects of Mr. Crowson's encephalopathy. According to the amended complaint, Mr. Crowson remained in the hospital until July 7, 2014, and continued to suffer from “residual effects of encephalopathy, liver disease, and other problems.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 43.) He testified in his deposition that he spent months recovering at his mother's house in Hooper, Utah before returning to the Jail on September 7, 2014:

And then I really don't have a memory for like the next two-and-a-half months until my brain-it's like my brain checked out sometime. Because I guess-I guess I was still eating food and I was still doing stuff because-and my mom and my girl was changing my diaper, and my little brother. They were changing my diaper the whole time I was in Hooper until like-I don't even-I don't even-I can't even say necessarily a certain time that I checked back in to my brain locker.

(Crowson Dep. at 19:7-15.)

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Mr. Crowson filed this case against Washington County, the Jail and Jail personnel (including Sheriff Pulsipher in his individual and official capacities), alleging negligence under state law, violations of the Utah Constitution, and violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. A number of parties and claims have already been dismissed, both by court order and stipulation of the parties. Most recently, the court, at the December 19, 2019 hearing on the present motions, dismissed PA Worlton from the case because of Mr. Crowson's failure to serve him. Mr. Crowson's only remaining claims are his § 1983 claims against Washington County (including Sheriff Pulsipher in his official capacity), Nurse Johnson, and Dr. LaRowe.

         These remaining Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Nurse Johnson and Dr. LaRowe argue that their care did not violate constitutional standards, and that they are, consequently, entitled to qualified immunity. Washington County[1] seeks summary judgment on the grounds that none of its employees committed an underlying constitutional violation, and that Mr. Crowson cannot show that a County policy or custom caused Mr. Crowson's injuries.

         The Defendants also argue that Mr. Crowson's claims should be dismissed because he failed to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), which requires that prisoners exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing suit under § 1983.

         SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

         A motion for summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of his or her case with respect to which he or she has the burden of proof.” Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Shero v. City of Grove, Okl., 510 F.3d 1196, 1200 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.