Denise Wilkins v. Vicki Montgomery
751 F.3d 214
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Davis, a patient at Central State Hospital, was murdered by another patient in Ward 39-8 after staff failed to conduct required 15-minute checks.
- A hospital investigation found staff neglect and specific failures by Harris and Thompson in supervising Davis and Phillips, contributing to the death.
- Appellant Wilkins, Davis’s mother, sued CSH and Montgomery, alleging grossly negligent supervision, Virginia Wrongful Death Act negligence, and §1983 supervisory liability.
- The district court excluded Wilkins’s expert Dr. Voskanian for late disclosure and denied amendment to add two new defendants, while granting summary judgment to Montgomery on all claims.
- Wilkins sought a second amended complaint to add Drs. Davis and Yaratha; the court held the amendment would be futile as it did not relate back under Rule 15(c).
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, upholding the expert exclusion, the Rule 15(c) relation-back ruling, and the grant of summary judgment in favor of Montgomery on §1983 and gross negligence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of expert violatedRule 26/37 discretion | Voskanian timely but incompletely disclosed | Late disclosure violated pre-trial order; prejudicial | No abuse; exclusion affirmed |
| Whether second amEndment relates back under Rule 15(c) | New defendants relate back due to notice and identity | New defendants lacked notice within 120 days; prejudice | Relation back denied; amendment futile |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on § 1983 supervisory liability | Montgomery had pervasive knowledge and failed to act | No pervasive risk or deliberate indifference proven; no causation | Summary judgment for Montgomery affirmed |
| Whether the Virginia gross negligence claims survive summary judgment | Evidence shows gross negligence by supervisors | Record does not show indifference shocking to fair-minded persons | Gross negligence claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin–Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2003) (district court has broad discretion to determine harmlessness of late Rule 26 disclosures)
- Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791 (4th Cir. 1994) (standard for summary judgment; credibility presumed for nonmoving party)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere, S. p. A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (relating back requires notice to new defendant that it would be named but for a mistake)
- Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2007) ( Rule 15(c) relation-back free amendment governs notices to new party)
- Locklear v. Bergman & Beving AB, 457 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2006) (test for relation back and notice under Rule 15(c))
- Sloas v. CSX Transp., Inc., 616 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for district court decisions)
- Saudi v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 427 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2005) (Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions purposes and discretion)