Prisoner Malpractice Suit

8/18/2019 Prisoner Malpractice Suit

1/10

COMPLAINTPage 1Juan C. ChavezOSB [email protected]

971.599.33581130 SW Morrison St, Ste 407

Portland, OR 97205

Juan C. Chavez, OSB #136428Email: [email protected] SW Morrison St., Ste. 407Portland, OR 97205

Telephone: 971-599-3358Facsimile: 971-275-1839

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

LINDA ANNE BOND,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF OREGON; DR. STEVE SHELTON;DR. ROBERT SNIDER; DR. ELIZABETHSAZIE; BEV SMITH, FNP; DR. REEDPAULSON; and JOHN DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Case No.

COMPLAINT

Civil Rights Action (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

State Tort Claim (Medical Malpractice)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

This is a civil rights and state tort law action against the above-named actors concerning their

negligent and deliberately indifferent treatment of a prisoner. Ms. Bond had her kidney removed

because of the Defendants’ disgracefully poor treatment, or non-treatment, of her kidney stone.

As a result, Ms. Bond lost her kidney to a condition that modern medicine would have prevented.

JURISDICTION

1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§

1983, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), (4), and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law

claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Case 3:16-cv-00648-YY Document 1 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 10


2/10



Portland, OR 97205

VENUE

2. Venue is proper within the District of Oregon because all of the events giving rise to this

claim occurred in this judicial district, and all defendants reside in this judicial district. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b). The acts and practices alleged herein occurred in Coffee Creek Correctional Facility,

Washington County, Oregon.

PARTIES

3. Linda Bond, Plaintiff, is a citizen of the State of Oregon, and at the time of filing lives at

the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility. Her SID Number is 19536446.

4. Defendant State of Oregon operates the Oregon Department of Corrections (“ODOC”)

facilities. At all times relevant, the State of Oregon was obligated and owed a special duty to

protect prisoners from harm.

5. All acts, transactions, and occurrences took place at the State of Oregon Department of

Correction’s Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, which is operated by Defendant State of Oregon

in Wilsonville, Washington County, OR. At all material times Defendant State of Oregon acted

through agents and employees who at all material times acted within the course and scope of

their agency and employment for Defendant State of Oregon.

6. Plaintiff gave Defendant State of Oregon a timely Tort Claim Notice.

7. Defendant Steve Shelton, M.D. is the medical director and employee of the Oregon

Department of Corrections (ODOC), and is sued in his individual capacity. He is responsible for

all medical decisions within ODOC. At all times relevant, he was acting under color of law.

8. Robert Snider, M.D. is a physician and employee of ODOC, and is sued in his individual

capacity. At all times relevant, he was acting under color of law.



3/10



Portland, OR 97205

9. Elizabeth Sazie, M.D. is a physician and employee of ODOC and is sued in her

individual capacity. At all times relevant, she was acting under color of law.

10. Bev Smith, FNP is a nurse practitioner and employee of ODOC, and is sued in her

individual capacity. At all times relevant, she was acting under color of law.

11. Reed Paulson, M.D. is a physician and employee of ODOC and is sued in her individual

capacity. At all times relevant, he was acting under color of law.

12. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as John

Does 1-10, and therefore sues these Defendants by fictitious names. John Does 1-10 are sued in

their individual capacity, and are State Government personnel who exercised command

responsibility over, conspired with, aided and abetted subordinates, and/or directly or indirectly

participated in Plaintiff’s deprivation of civil rights as hereinafter alleged.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. On December 17, 2013, Plaintiff was transported to Coffee Creek Correctional Facility,

which is operated by Defendants. Prior to her internment at Coffee Creek, Plaintiff was

incarcerated at the Douglas County Jail, in Roseburg, OR. While at the Douglas County Jail,

Plaintiff had begun to feel an intense pain in her abdomen. After reviewing radiographic images

of Plaintiff’s abdomen, the Douglas County Jail’s medical staff assessed that Plaintiff had a large

kidney stone in her left kidney. Defendants were aware of this assessment when Plaintiff was

transferred to Coffee Creek.

14. On January 23, 2014, Defendants took an X-ray of Plaintiff’s kidney. The X-ray revealed

a large calcification in the left renal midpole, and several small calcifications in the pelvic veins,

called phleboliths. Plaintiff had blood in her urine, severe pain in her abdomen, and fevers.



4/10



Portland, OR 97205

15. Defendants’ treatments following this discovery were negligible. The dimensions of the

kidney stone were of such that removal through less-invasive means, such as but not limited to a

percutaneous nephrolithotomy, was necessary, and available. Instead the Defendants provided no

treatment to Plaintiff beyond occasional pain medicine. Defendants made no record of tracking

her kidneys’ condition, made no effort to treat the underlying medical issue of a kidney stone,

and ignored Plaintiff’s requests for further treatment, often made in writing.

16. Plaintiff’s condition persisted for many months. After repeated denials of treatment,

Plaintiff became discouraged and depressed. Plaintiff fell further into illness. In or around

October 2014, Plaintiff was in severe pain again. Plaintiff had difficulty ambulating through the

facility. A Correctional Officer noticed Plaintiff’s difficulty walking, and insisted that one of the

nurses at the facility check her condition.

17. At the insistence of the Correctional Officer, Defendants examined Plaintiff and again

discovered that she was suffering from abdominal pain. Defendants found a severe infection in

Plaintiff’s kidney. Defendants sent Plaintiff to receive another X-ray on November 17, 2014.

18. The X-ray revealed that the same stone that existed in January of that year, a full eleven

months prior, was still present and unchanged in the left kidney, as Plaintiff had relayed to

Defendants in the months prior.

19. Throughout her treatment, Plaintiff had implored the individually-named Defendants, all

of whom treated Plaintiff or made decisions regarding her treatment, to address her symptoms.

The named doctors and nurses reviewed her medical chart, included those provided by Douglas

County, indicating that Plaintiff had a large kidney stone and that she was symptomatic of a

dangerous kidney infection. As medical director, Dr. Shelton sits on all of the committees across

the state correctional facilities that determines as to whether or not a prisoner receives medical



5/10



Portland, OR 97205

treatment. The individually-named Doctor Defendants took no steps to treat Plaintiff’s condition

beyond the initial January X-Ray until the above-mentioned Correctional Officer advocated for

her.

20. Defendants sent Plaintiff to a doctor at Tualatin’s Legacy Meridian Park, whom

examined Plaintiff. The doctor recognized that the kidney stone had blocked Plaintiff’s left

kidney function, and developed a perirenal abscess that extended to a splenic abscess, requiring

that the left kidney be removed as a whole.

21. On December 23, 2014, Plaintiff received surgery, called a nephrectomy, at Legacy

Meridian, and had her left kidney removed.

22. Plaintiff suffered considerable pain all through the ordeal, and ultimately lost her left

kidney. Prior to succumbing to the severe pain of her kidney issues, Plaintiff worked in the

Coffee Creek facility in Computer Automated Drafting for the company Oregon Correctional

Enterprises, and developed a stream income of $36 a month. Plaintiff had to miss work to receive

surgery. Prior to her incarceration, Plaintiff had owned a business in Boise, ID, and intended to

return to business ownership after incarceration.

23. Removal of the kidney, in addition to general post-operative dangers, often leads to

hypertension, a condition that decreases a patient’s life expectancy.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM 1

(Negligence: Medical Malpractice)

24. Plaintiff restates and incorporates here the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 23.

25. The agents and employees of Defendants State of Oregon were negligent in the following

particulars:

a. In not properly monitoring Plaintiff’s condition;



6/10



Portland, OR 97205

b. In not adequately questioning Plaintiff about her symptoms;

c. In not adequately examining Plaintiff;

d. In ignoring information about Plaintiff provided by other inmates;

e. In failing to accurately document symptoms in Plaintiff’s medical file;

f In not providing Plaintiff any follow-up care or investigation into her kidney

stone’s non-passage between January 28, 2014 and October of 2014;

g. In not referring Plaintiff’s persistent kidney stone related issues to a urologist

sooner than December of 2014;

h. In not managing Plaintiff’s pain;

i. In failing to oversee and supervise the provision of health care in Coffee Creek

Correctional Facility;

j. In failing to adequately train staff at the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility to

recognize, report, and treat serious physical illnesses such as large kidney stones,

pain and tenderness in the left abdomen of a person diagnosed with a large kidney

stone, persistent blood in the urine of a patient diagnosed with a large kidney

stone, persistent fever in a patient diagnosed with a large kidney stone, and the

signs of infection in a person diagnosed with a large kidney stone; and

k. In creating the conditions that ultimately led to the removal of Plaintiff’s kidney.

26. The Defendants were aware of the substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff through one or

more of the following circumstances or symptoms displayed to them by Plaintiff or reported to

them:

a. From the medical records provided to Defendants by the Douglas County

Jail;



7/10



Portland, OR 97205

a. From the large calcification present in the January 28, 2014 X-Ray;

b. From the consistent pain and tenderness of Plaintiff’s left-side of her

abdomen;

d. From Plaintiff’s facial expressions of anxiety, pain, and discomfort;

e. From Plaintiff’s frequent requests for additional treatment or medical

attention;

f. From the recurring fevers Plaintiff suffered throughout 2014; and

g. From the recurring blood in Plaintiff’s urine.

27. The State of Oregon owes Plaintiff a higher standard of care because of the nature of

incarceration. As a ward of the State, Defendant manages all aspects of Plaintiff’s health care,

and decides when a request for a medical appointment should be granted. Had Plaintiff been a

free person, she would have sought the appropriate treatment immediately and had some form of

treatment rendered. However, as an incarcerated person, when Plaintiff sought treatment while in

Defendant’s facility her pleas for treatment were unmet. Defendant voluntarily took the custody

of Plaintiff under circumstances such as to deprive Plaintiff of normal opportunities for

protection, and created a non-delegable duty to ensure that Plaintiff was able to access adequate

medical care while incarcerated. Defendant did not meet its obligation to provide for “healthcare,

including medical, dental, mental health care and pharmacy services, that compl[ies] with

appropriate professional standards.” OAR 291-124-0016(1)(c).

28. State of Oregon’s agents and employees knew, or should have known that their acts and

omissions would result in a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff. Kidney stone treatment should

rarely result in the full removal of the kidney in 2014, the year in which the surgery occurred.

However, neglect of a kidney stone foreseeably leads to the loss of the kidney. Had Plaintiff’s



8/10



Portland, OR 97205

claims been taken seriously, and had Defendants properly treated Plaintiff, Plaintiff would have

simply passed her kidney stone as most modern patients do.

29. State of Oregon’s agents and employees’ conduct was unreasonable in light of the risk of

harm to Plaintiff. Defendant controlled all aspects of Plaintiff’s medical care. Plaintiff’s kidney

stones could have been easily managed with a number of treatments available in modern medical

facilities. A simple referral to a urologist would have helped determine the need for, and dictated

the terms to, properly treating the kidney stone. Instead, Defendant unreasonably disregarded

Plaintiff’s pleas for medical assistance concerning her kidney stone and ignored a very

dangerous medical issue.

30. But-for the Defendants’ negligent conduct, Plaintiff had her left kidney removed, and

suffered the pains and indignities of Defendants’ treatment. Plaintiff took every conceivable step

available to an incarcerated person to advocate for herself, and to seek treatment.

31. Because of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer pain

following her nephrectomy. Plaintiff has post-operative pain in her abdomen, difficulty walking,

difficulty sleeping, anxiety, pain, discomfort, frustration at being unable to access adequate

medical care, and fear of permanent injury or death. Plaintiff will likely have a decreased life

expectancy because of the avoidable loss of her kidney.

32. Plaintiff will incur medical bills following her incarceration to monitor her lost kidney

function and the general perils of post-operative care.

33. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ acts or omissions, plaintiff has

incurred economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be determined by a jury.

Claim 2

(42 U.S.C. § 1983: Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need)

34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 22.



9/10



Portland, OR 97205

35. All named-Defendants are persons under within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

36. The individual Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Ms. Bond’s serious medical

needs in providing medically unacceptable treatment and prescriptions for Ms. Bond’s condition

of kidney stones and the resulting infections. By ignoring the obvious signs and symptoms Ms.

Bond exhibited, the individually-named Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious

medical need, and were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm to the plaintiff.

37. The individually-named Defendants were provided ample and obvious signs of Ms.

Bond’s dire condition—often through Ms. Bond’s insistence on requesting medical care—but

made no effort to appropriately treat her condition. Had Plaintiff’s claims been taken seriously,

and had Defendants properly treated Plaintiff, Plaintiff would have simply passed her kidney

stone as most modern patients do. Instead, the named-Defendants passed over treatment for

Plaintiff until full removal became necessary.

38. As a result of the individually-named Defendants’ indifference, the Defendants violated

Plaintiff’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of

the United States Constitution.

39. Because of the individually-named Defendants’ violations of Ms. Bond’s rights, Plaintiff

suffered and continues to suffer pain following her nephrectomy. Plaintiff has post-operative

pain in her abdomen, difficulty walking, difficulty sleeping, anxiety, pain, discomfort, frustration

at being unable to access adequate medical care, and fear of permanent injury or death. Plaintiff

will likely have a decreased life expectancy because of the avoidable loss of her kidney.

40. Plaintiff will incur medical bills following her incarceration to monitor her lost kidney

function and the general perils of post-operative care.



10/10



Portland, OR 97205

41. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ acts or omissions, plaintiff has

incurred economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be determined by a jury.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

A. For economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

B. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988; and

B. Such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

DATE: April 14, 2016.

/s/ Juan C. Chavez _Juan C. Chavez, OSB #136428Attorney for Plaintiff

Trial Attorney: Juan C. Chavez


Documents

Prisoner Malpractice Suit