Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miller v. Lehman

United States District Court, D. Maryland

February 12, 2015

TONY MILLER, Plaintiff,
THOMAS M. LEHMAN, et al. Defendants.


JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge.

Defendants move for dismissal in the above-captioned civil rights case. ECF 9. Plaintiff opposes the motion.[1] ECF 19. The court finds a hearing in this matter unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion shall be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff Tony Miller ("Miller"), an inmate incarcerated at the Maryland Correctional Institution-Jessup, at the time of the actions complained of, asserts that he was denied adequate medical care by defendants. Miller states that on September 27, 2011, he underwent surgery for a chronic tear of the quadricep muscle and tendon of the right knee at Bon Secours Hospital. Miller states that the surgeon, Dr. Ashok Krishnaswamy, ordered he be seen for follow-up in two to three weeks. Miller returned to the hospital on October 28, 2011, to have the staples removed. Miller states his sutures were not removed at that time. Krishnaswamy advised Miller that physical therapy would not start for two to three months as the muscles and tendons needed time to heal. Miller was scheduled for follow-up which he received with Krishnaswamy on November 22, 2011. At that time his sutures were removed and he was directed to gradually begin a six-week course of physical therapy. He was directed to return for follow-up in five to six weeks. Krishnaswamy directed that Miller stay in the prison infirmary due to his inability to climb stairs. ECF 1, p. 4.

Miller states that Dr. Melaku Ayalew, a physician working at the prison, ignored Krishnaswamy's directive and moved Miller back into general population on January 19, 2012. Miller states that he had completed the physical therapy ordered by Krishnaswamy but was not returned to the surgeon for follow-up. Rather, without being seen by Krishnaswamy, Physician's Assistant Bogucki referred Miller to continue physical therapy because Miller's leg did not improve after the initial physical therapy sessions. Id.

Miller further claims that he was placed on the prison chronic care list to be followed by Dr. Sisay. He states that each time he saw Sisay he complained about the lack of progress in the healing of his leg and the excruciating pain he was suffering. He further advised Sisay that he was to return for follow-up care with Krishnaswamy. Miller states that it took a year for him to be returned for follow-up care with Krishnaswamy. Id.

Upon evaluation by Krishnaswamy, Miller was advised that the central part of his quadricep muscle had pulled away and he would need additional surgical repair to the muscle and tendon. He was further advised that there was a gap near the superior pole of the patella and additional testing was needed. Krishnaswamy directed Miller return in four weeks for follow-up. Id. Miller was advised by Sisay that Krishnaswamy's request for surgery was refused. Sisay indicated he would resubmit the request, but Miller was later advised that the recommended surgery was again denied. Sisay told Miller that he would need to wait until he was released to have any further surgery. Id.

Miller states that he filed an Administrative Remedy Request ("ARP") but it was dismissed. Miller further alleges that he filed two complaints with the Inmate Grievance Office ("IGO") but was advised that the IGO does not address claims against health care contractors. Id.

Defendants' Response

Defendants claim that Miller's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. They state that Miller has failed to make any factual allegations as to Ms. Steele, Dr. Lehman, or Wexford, but also note that plaintiff alleged that "defendants" denied his request for surgery. Defendants further maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity and that Miller's state tort claim must be dismissed for failure to submit his claim to the Maryland Health Claims Arbitration Board. ECF 9 and 22.

Standard of Review

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). The dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted does not require defendant to establish "beyond doubt" that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561-62 (2007). Once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint. Id. at 562. The court need not, however, accept unsupported legal allegations, see Revene v. Charles County Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989), legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986), or conclusional factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events, see United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979).


Defendants claim entitlement to qualified immunity, citing Filarsky v. Delia, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1657, 1667-68 (2012). Filarsky overturned the denial of qualified immunity to an attorney who was retained by a city in California to assist in an internal investigation concerning a firefighter's potential wrongdoing. Id. at 1666. Defendants fail to demonstrate that Filarsky has been extended to contractual health care providers working in detention centers or correctional facilities, and the undersigned will not extend the holding in Filarsky based on the record now before the court. Further, assuming arguendo that defendants can invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity, the determination of whether they are entitled to qualified immunity is more appropriately addressed after the facts of the case have been developed ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.