Weintraub ex rel. Weintraub v. Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc.
Docket: CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-01213-AT
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia; October 26, 2015; Federal District Court
Dr. William Weintraub died in a prison transport van in Georgia due to an alleged untreated ulcer and septic infection. His surviving heir and estate administrator filed a lawsuit against Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc. (ACH) and Prisoner Transport Services of America, LLC (PTS) for negligence, medical negligence, and wrongful death under Georgia law. PTS, which transports prisoners, sought to transfer the case to the Western District of Kentucky to pursue claims against the county detention center where Weintraub was held temporarily during a transport from Colorado to South Carolina. The court denied PTS’s motion to transfer, determining that the factors favoring transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) were not met.
Weintraub, a nuclear physicist, was detained by Boulder Police on January 1, 2014, due to an outstanding arrest warrant. After being extradited to South Carolina, PTS was contracted to transport him. While at Boulder County Jail, he experienced stomach pain and received minimal treatment. PTS took custody of him on April 14, 2014, initiating a five-day trip, during which he allegedly received no treatment, worsening his stomach condition. Upon arriving at the Daviess County Detention Center (DCDC) in Kentucky, PTS continued to house Weintraub while waiting to transport other detainees.
ACH, which provided medical services at DCDC, allegedly failed to conduct a required initial medical screening upon his admission. On April 21, Weintraub requested medical care for severe stomach pain, but ACH reportedly ignored his request for three days, leading to increased pain and an untreated ulcer. Other inmates observed his deteriorating condition and sought medical assistance for him.
On April 23, an ACH nurse examined Weintraub, who complained of severe abdominal pain and reported passing out that morning. During the examination, he was restless and unable to stay still due to his pain. The nurse administered an antacid and promised to consult a doctor. Later that evening, Weintraub experienced intense abdominal pain, nausea, and vomited blood. On April 24, he was cleared for transport to South Carolina after a final medical exam. A PTS guard noted Weintraub's complaints of pain during loading into the transport van and sought confirmation from medical staff about his condition. Other inmates observed that Weintraub appeared ill, describing him as sweaty and pale, and he required assistance to board the van. Reports indicate that PTS and ACH staff mocked him during this time.
On April 25, shortly before arrival at the Union County Sheriff's Office, Weintraub collapsed, urinated on himself, and became unresponsive. Inmates alerted PTS agents, but their requests for help were ignored. Upon arrival, PTS agents discovered Weintraub apparently deceased. An autopsy concluded that he died from a perforated duodenal ulcer and septic infection.
The plaintiff alleges negligence against PTS, asserting that they failed to provide necessary medical care during transport, including not stopping for evaluation, cutting off his medications, ignoring evident health issues, and neglecting requests for help. The plaintiff contends that PTS held a continuous duty of care throughout the transport process, remaining liable for any negligence by ACH or others involved from the time of custody on April 14 until Weintraub's death on April 25.
Plaintiff brings claims against ACH for medical negligence, ordinary negligence, and punitive damages, alleging various breaches of professional standards of care during Weintraub’s detention at the DCDC. The allegations include failures to conduct proper medical intake and screening, provide necessary medications for a severe ulcer, ensure a medical doctor’s examination following a nurse's initial assessment, recognize signs of a gastrointestinal infection, evaluate complaints of severe abdominal pain and other symptoms in a timely manner, and address significant weight loss and other indicators of serious illness. Additionally, ACH is accused of failing to identify and treat a duodenal ulcer and acute infection.
Plaintiff claims that both ACH and PTS were concurrently negligent in Weintraub’s death by not ordering necessary observation and testing, failing to transfer him to an emergency facility, and improperly clearing him for transport to South Carolina without adequate medical evaluation. Furthermore, ACH faces ordinary negligence claims related to the actions of its non-licensed healthcare providers and administrative personnel involved in patient care decisions.
Separately, Defendant PTS has filed a motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Kentucky, emphasizing that the events in question occurred in Kentucky, where most key witnesses reside, and asserting that Georgia is not an appropriate venue for this case. ACH has not responded to this motion.
Plaintiff opposes Defendant PTS’s motion to transfer the case, asserting that the chosen forum in the Northern District of Georgia is appropriate and convenient for several reasons: (1) William Weintraub died in Georgia, specifically within this District; (2) critical witnesses and evidence regarding his death are predominantly located in Georgia; (3) Florida, Robert Weintraub's home state, lacks a factual connection to the case; (4) neither Defendant is a citizen or resident of Kentucky; (5) PTS’s relevant employee witnesses reside in Tennessee; (6) several inmates present during Weintraub's death were believed to be Georgia citizens; (7) the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) conducted an investigation with current Georgia residents; (8) the GBI medical examiner in Atlanta performed the autopsy; and (9) transferring to Kentucky would impose additional costs for Plaintiff and his expert witnesses.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a civil action may be transferred for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice. The court must first establish if the action could have been brought in the Western District of Kentucky. The court will then evaluate nine factors pertinent to transfer, including witness convenience, document location, party convenience, and familiarity with governing law, among others. Courts have considerable discretion in evaluating these factors. The Plaintiff's choice of venue is generally respected, and a motion to transfer should not be granted lightly. The initial determination is whether the action could have been initiated in the proposed alternate forum, a point neither party addressed in their motion briefs. A civil action may be brought in a district where any defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or in any district where a defendant is subject to the court’s jurisdiction if no other venue is available.
Defendants PTS and ACH are not residents of Kentucky but may be subject to personal jurisdiction in the Western District of Kentucky due to their connections with the state. Weintraub, who experienced deteriorating health during his stay at the DCDC in Owensboro, Kentucky, allegedly suffered from medical negligence by ACH, leading to his death shortly after leaving the facility. The court finds that significant events related to the plaintiff's claims occurred at the DCDC, suggesting that the case could have originated there.
The court then evaluates whether transferring the case from the Northern District of Georgia to the Western District of Kentucky would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses, placing the burden of proof on Defendant PTS to demonstrate that such a transfer is justified. Six out of nine factors under § 1404(a) are neutral regarding venue transfer. Notably, the convenience of witnesses does not favor transfer to Kentucky; while PTS presents twelve potential witnesses in Kentucky, nine are ACH employees, whose convenience carries less weight. Key non-party witnesses, specifically correctional officers from the DCDC, are considered crucial for understanding the circumstances surrounding Weintraub’s death and the contractual relationship between PTS and the DCDC. Their testimonies may address events leading to the alleged negligence and Weintraub's medical condition upon his arrival at the DCDC.
Defendant claims that several inmates can provide relevant information about Weintraub’s medical condition, his requests for assistance, and his treatment at DCDC; however, their current locations are uncertain. Plaintiff identifies key non-party witnesses, including GBI investigators, the GBI Medical Examiner, first responder EMTs, law enforcement, and the inmates from the transport van during Weintraub’s death, with most of these witnesses based in Georgia. Defendant disputes the relevance of GBI investigators as they lack personal knowledge regarding ACH or PTS's liability, but the court finds these witnesses essential for evidence, including the GBI investigation file and the coroner’s report.
While eight of the ten inmates in the transport van were headed to Georgia, none are currently listed as inmates by the Georgia Department of Corrections; their addresses span multiple states, complicating the determination of convenience. Both parties argue that the location of non-party witnesses justifies their preferred venue; however, the distribution of witnesses across Georgia, Kentucky, and other states renders this factor neutral. The ability to compel witness testimony does not favor either venue since witnesses from both states may not be compelled in the other state’s court.
Regarding party convenience, neither party resides in Kentucky. PTS, a Tennessee corporation, argues for Kentucky's convenience due to the necessity of joining DCDC, while Plaintiff contends that traveling to Atlanta, Georgia, is easier than to Owensboro, Kentucky, and expresses concerns about additional legal expenses if venue is transferred. The court concludes that the pros and cons for each venue balance out, making this factor neutral as well.
The 'locus of operative facts' factor is neutral, with PTS arguing that the focus is on the medical negligence occurring in Kentucky, while the Plaintiff contends the significant events took place in Georgia, where Weintraub's death was investigated. The Plaintiff also notes that initial symptoms appeared in Boulder, Colorado. After PTS took custody of Weintraub on April 14, 2014, they allegedly discontinued his medications and transported him through multiple states, during which his condition deteriorated. After being cleared for transport from a Kentucky detention facility to South Carolina, Weintraub was found deceased upon arrival in Georgia. The relevant facts are therefore distributed among Kentucky, Georgia, and potentially Colorado.
Regarding the location of relevant documents, PTS claims crucial records are in Kentucky, including documentation from the DCDC and ACH. However, PTS does not address the ease of access to these documents or provide alternatives. The Plaintiff argues that this factor weighs against transfer due to key evidence, including investigative files and eyewitnesses located in Georgia. The modern reliance on electronic discovery diminishes the significance of physical document locations, and no specific difficulties were presented by PTS for document production. Thus, this factor remains neutral. Lastly, the familiarity of the forum with the governing law does not favor either party.
Plaintiff asserts that Georgia law applies to this case regarding ordinary and medical negligence and damages. While Defendant PTS acknowledges the applicability of Georgia law, it argues that the laws governing medical malpractice are similar in Georgia and Kentucky, suggesting that a Kentucky court could apply Georgia law if needed. Conversely, a federal court in Georgia could apply Kentucky law, rendering this factor neutral.
Factors against transferring the case to Kentucky include financial disparities between the parties, with Plaintiff Robert Weintraub being retired and of modest means, while Defendant PTS is a large company with greater resources. This aspect favors retaining the case in Georgia. Additionally, Plaintiff's choice of forum is granted significant deference, particularly since the events leading to the lawsuit occurred in Georgia. Although Plaintiff does not reside in Georgia, his inability to file in Florida due to the lack of relevant connections there reinforces the appropriateness of the Georgia venue.
The Court concludes that PTS has not demonstrated any factors favoring a transfer to Kentucky, failing to establish that judicial economy or the interests of justice support such a move. Consequently, the Court denies PTS's motion to transfer. The Court also notes that it does not make determinations regarding the necessity of the DCDC as a party or personal jurisdiction over it in this case but acknowledges that PTS may seek indemnification against DCDC if found liable. The Court accepts the similarity between Georgia and Kentucky medical malpractice laws and recognizes Kentucky's local interest in the treatment of inmates but finds that this interest is not decisive.
