Simmons v. Corizon Health, Inc.
122 F. Supp. 3d 255
M.D.N.C.2015Background
- County contracted with Corizon to provide 24/7 emergency medical care for jail inmates and to meet NCCHC standards.
- Plaintiffs allege Corizon violated contractual and NCCHC standards and failed to cover hospital costs for inmate care.
- Bryan Simmons, incarcerated on a probation violation, experienced severe gastrointestinal symptoms beginning in November 2012.
- Corizon staff reportedly delayed hospitalization and provided limited care while Bryan’s condition worsened, culminating in cardiac arrest and permanent brain injury.
- Plaintiffs assert a policy or custom of denying or delaying medical treatment for inmates caused Bryan’s injuries.
- Plaintiffs filed a six-count amended complaint seeking § 1983 relief, state-law negligence, negligence per se, loss of consortium, and punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence per se viability against Corizon | Corizon’s NCCHC contract and statutory duties constitute a public-safety standard. | Contractual duty cannot support negligence per se; statutes cited do not impose a duty on Corizon. | Negligence per se claim against Corizon dismissed. |
| § 1983 deliberate indifference by Corizon | Corizon knew of Bryan’s serious medical needs and disregarded them. | Plaintiffs fail to plead an official policy or custom causing the deprivation. | Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim against Corizon survives 12(b)(6) (deliberate indifference plausibly alleged). |
| Punitive damages against Corizon under § 1983 | Facts show callous indifference justifying punitive damages. | Punitive damages not properly grounded in a stated basis. | Punitive damages claim survives; court allows punitive damages under § 1983. |
| Guilford County § 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment claims | Amended complaint asserts county liability through official policy/custom and supervisory liability. | Scrivener errors aside, Fourteenth Amendment claims are improper; county liability should be dismissed. | Fourteenth Amendment claim against County and Sheriff Barnes dismissed; § 1983 claim against County for Eighth Amendment care survives; official-capacity claim against Barnes survives. |
| State-law immunity and jurisdictional limits | County immunity waived via § 153A-435(a) and other statutes; discovery should be allowed. | Immunity remains; LGELF does not qualify as a valid risk pool; bond limits apply; discovery denied. | State-law claims against the County are dismissed; Sheriff Barnes limited to $25,000 bond; jurisdictional discovery denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (Eighth Amendment medical-care standard for inmates requires deliberate indifference)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (contracting out care does not negate constitutional duty to provide treatment)
- King v. Kramer, 680 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2012) (county may not shield itself from § 1983 liability by contracting out medical care)
- Carter v. Morris, 164 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 1999) (official policy or custom required for municipal § 1983 liability)
- Amata v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1985) (continuing county responsibility when private provider is contracted)
- Benton v. Hillcrest Foods, Inc., 524 S.E.2d 53 (N.C. App. 1999) (punitive damages require willful or wanton conduct and reckless indifference)