WILSON v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 26, 2022
Docket2:19-cv-04257
StatusUnknown

This text of WILSON v. United States (WILSON v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
WILSON v. United States, (E.D. Pa. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARQUIS WILSON, : Plaintiff, : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-4257 : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. :

McHUGH, J. April 26, 2022 MEMORANDUM This is an action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act by a prisoner who alleges delayed diagnosis of testicular cancer while in custody, resulting in removal of a testicle and other effects that he contends could have been avoided by an earlier diagnosis. The Court was unsuccessful in securing counsel with the result that Plaintiff must proceed pro se. He does not have the benefit of expert testimony but argues that it is unnecessary to the prosecution of his claim. As to negligence, Plaintiff may well be correct. But this case involves complex and subtle issues of causation and damages, beyond the competence of a lay factfinder – even a judge - to decide in the absence of expert opinion. I am therefore constrained to grant the motion of the United States for summary judgment. I. Factual Allegations and Procedural Posture: Plaintiff, Marquis Wilson, has sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States of America for professional negligence in relation to medical care he received at the Federal Detention Center (FDC) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In 2014, Plaintiff was placed at the FDC as a pretrial detainee. Compl. ¶ 2, ECF 1. At some unspecified point in 2017, he noticed a lump on his right testicle and complained to FDC medical staff. Id. ¶ 3. In November 2017, Plaintiff was evaluated by FDC medical staff, who acknowledged that a lump in that area was probably cancerous. Id. ¶ 4. By the end of November 2017, Plaintiff alleges that the lump was “grapefruit-sized.” Id. ¶ 9. He further alleges that in spite of his repeated communications to FDC

staff about his worsening medical condition, no further treatment was provided at the FDC. Id. On February 5, 2018, having been sentenced, Plaintiff was transferred to the Bureau of Prison’s USP-Allenwood facility. Id. ¶ 11. On February 6, 2018, Plaintiff saw Allenwood medical staff and was told that “the size of the swelling was unusual.” Id. An ultrasound was taken and it was determined that the lump was cancerous. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges that Allenwood medical staff told him that the lump “should have been treated earlier for best results but by that point the only course of action was to remove one of Plaintiff’s testicles which was done surgically.” Id. The cancer was treated by the surgical removal of Plaintiff’s right testicle on February 21, 2018. Id.; Answer ¶ 13, ECF 28. Mr. Wilson filed his complaint in this case after his administrative complaint was denied.

ECF 1. He did not file a certificate of merit with his complaint. The Government contends that Pa. R. Civ. P. 1042.3 applies in actions brought under the FTCA and provided Wilson notice of its intention to move to dismiss the complaint for failure to file a certificate of merit. Pennsylvania Rule 1042.3 requires that any action alleging professional negligence must be supported by an affidavit of merit warranting that a qualified expert has reviewed the matter and concluded that there is a “reasonable probability” that there was a breach of the applicable standard of care or that expert testimony is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim. Mr. Wilson was granted multiple extensions of time to take a position on the certificate of merit. ECF 12, 15, 19. On October 7, 2020, the Court finally denied an additional request for an extension, noting that Plaintiff had been granted extensions dating back to December 2019. Simultaneously, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. ECF 22. On October 8, 2020, the United States moved to dismiss Wilson’s complaint for failure to file a certificate of merit. ECF 23. In his response, Mr. Wilson further elaborated on his claim,

alleging that because of the delay in diagnosis and surgery, his cancer “advanced to the second stage, [which resulted in] a serious abdominal surgery, which led to plaintiff permanently losing his ejaculatory function, diminishing his procreation ability, on top of the already rigorous chemotherapy regimen Plaintiff suffered.” ECF 24 at 3. Plaintiff also asked that the Court “treat his reply . . . as a Certification under [Pa. R. Civ. P.] 1042.3(a)(3) that ‘expert testimony of an appropriate license [sic] professional is unnecessary for prosecution of claims [sic]’ and find that this certificate satisfies the requirement of this rule.” Id. at 11. Wilson emphasized, “Plaintiff unequivocally asserts that his claim of negligence is so patently obvious, that expert testimony is not required…” Id. at 11-12. The government then withdrew its Motion to Dismiss and filed the pending motion for summary judgment. ECF 26, 29.

After further reviewing the record and Plaintiff’s answer to the motion, the Court, sua sponte, reconsidered Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel and listed Plaintiff’s case on the Court’s Pro Bono Panel for prisoner cases. ECF 31. Case deadlines were stayed while the case remained on the panel. It remained pending for over a year without being taken by an attorney. In February 2022, Plaintiff communicated that he wanted his case to be removed from the prisoner panel, ECF 40, and Plaintiff was granted 45 days in which to file any additional submissions in response to the Government’s motion for summary judgment. ECF 41. That period has now elapsed without Plaintiff filing any further materials, rendering the motion for summary judgment ripe for consideration. II. Standard of Review The party’s motion for summary judgment is governed by the well-established standard for summary judgment set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), as amplified by Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986).1

III. Discussion Under the FTCA, the state law in which the alleged tortious conduct occurred supplies the substantive tort law. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). In Pennsylvania, to state a prima facie cause of action for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate the elements of negligence: “a duty owed by the physician to the patient, a breach of that duty by the physician, that the breach was the proximate cause of the harm suffered, and the damages suffered were a direct result of harm.”

Hightower–Warren v. Silk, 698 A.2d 52, 54 (Pa. 1997). “With all but the most self-evident medical malpractice actions there is also the added requirement that the plaintiff must provide a medical expert who will testify as to the elements of duty, breach, and causation.” Quinby v. Plumsteadville Fam. Prac., Inc., 907 A.2d 1061, 1070–71 (Pa. 2006). Regardless of whether Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3(a)(3) applies to actions brought under the FTCA, 2 Plaintiff is proceeding without an expert, relying upon the

1 Although there has been no factual discovery conducted, Defendant’s Answer indicates that the material facts here are not in dispute and summary judgment is appropriate. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Liggon-Redding v. Estate of Robert Sugarman
659 F.3d 258 (Third Circuit, 2011)
Tabron v. Grace
6 F.3d 147 (Third Circuit, 1993)
Jon Baumgardner v. David Ebbert
535 F. App'x 72 (Third Circuit, 2013)
Hightower-Warren v. Silk
698 A.2d 52 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)
Bearfield v. Hauch
595 A.2d 1320 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1991)
Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz
421 A.2d 1027 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Gallegor by Gallegor v. Felder
478 A.2d 34 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1984)
Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc.
907 A.2d 1061 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2006)
Ruben Cuevas v. United States
580 F. App'x 71 (Third Circuit, 2014)
Matthew Faush v. Tuesday Morning
808 F.3d 208 (Third Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Kenneth James
928 F.3d 247 (Third Circuit, 2019)
Reginald Young v. United States
942 F.3d 349 (Seventh Circuit, 2019)
Dennis Gallivan v. United States
943 F.3d 291 (Sixth Circuit, 2019)
Lorenzo Pledger v. Loretta Lynch
5 F.4th 511 (Fourth Circuit, 2021)
Corley v. United States
11 F.4th 79 (Second Circuit, 2021)
Fessenden v. Robert Packer Hospital
97 A.3d 1225 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
Incollingo v. Ewing
282 A.2d 206 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Booker v. United States
366 F. App'x 425 (Third Circuit, 2010)
Boring v. Kozakiewicz
833 F.2d 468 (Third Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
WILSON v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-united-states-paed-2022.