Dilworth v. Goldberg
914 F. Supp. 2d 433
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Anthony and Patricia Dilworth sue NYMC, Westchester County, WCHCC and numerous correction officers for injuries and mistreatment during Dilworth’s pretrial confinement at WCJ; NYMC claims were previously dismissed from the 2d Am. Compl.
- Plaintiffs move to amend for a third time; County Defendants oppose; NYMC submits opposition though not a party to the current motion.
- DOJ conducted on-site WCJ investigation (Feb 2008) with findings of deficient inmate care, inadequate grievance process, and excessive force concerns; DOJ letter dated Nov 19, 2009 echoed these concerns.
- Allegations describe a pattern of misconduct affecting Dilworth from Oct 2008 to Sept 2009, including denied medical care, improper medical documentation, strip searches, confiscation of personal items, and coercive pressures to waive claims.
- Relation among entities: NYMC employed doctors who treated WCJ inmates; NYMC allegedly controlled physician assignments and training; WCHCC contracted to provide medical/dental/mental health care; contracts allegedly governed by an affiliation with NYMC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monell claim viability against NYMC | Proposed TAC alleges NYMC policy/ratification through control of care and training. | Allegations fail to show final policymaker or pervasive policy by NYMC; discussions about DOJ findings are insufficient. | Monell claim against NYMC futile; insufficient policy basis. |
| Respondeat superior against NYMC for doctors' acts | Doctors’ torts are within NYMC’s employment scope; NYMC liable for acts of Bailey-Wallace, Goldberg, Schramm. | No tortious acts by NYMC-partnered doctors; arguments fail on merits. | Court finds no viable NYMC vicarious liability on the asserted tort claims against these doctors. |
| Third-party breach of contract claim against NYMC | Dilworth is a third-party beneficiary to a contract between NYMC and Westchester County for inmate care. | Plaintiff failed to plead contract terms and relevant provisions; lacks standing. | Amendment to add third-party breach of contract against NYMC denied. |
| Negligence/medical negligence claims against NYMC | NYMC owed a duty of care; claims arise from medical treatment. | Claims fail for lack of direct duty and improper theory; also depend on respondeat superior which is rejected. | Amendment to add negligence/medical negligence against NYMC denied. |
| Intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress and related claims against NYMC | Alleged extreme conduct by NYMC-affiliated actors supported distress claims. | Allegations do not meet rigorous standards for IIED/GIRED claims. | Claims against NYMC for IIED/related distress denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (establishes municipal liability for official policy; private entity analog requires policy or ratification)
- City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988) (final policymaker standard for Monell claims)
- Rojas v. Alexander’s Dept. Store, 924 F.2d 406 (2d Cir.1990) (private entities liable under §1983 via policy, practice, or ratification)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain plausible facts, not mere conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires more than conclusory statements; must plead plausibly)