Federal judge dismisses negligence claim against hospital in death of Montezuma County jail detainee

A hospital in Cortez cannot itself be liable for negligence in the death of a Montezuma County jail detainee, a federal judge ruled last month.

Kelroy Newman arrived at the jail on July 17, 2021 with a blood alcohol concentration five times the legal limit, 0.421, and injuries to his head. Police took him to Southwest Memorial Hospital, where a doctor evaluated Newman and returned him to the jail. One day later, Newman died from complications of chronic alcohol use.

Newman's daughter and her mother filed suit against several defendants, including Montezuma County, the elected sheriff, the hospital and Randy Gene Davidson — the doctor who evaluated Newman. The bulk of the lawsuit pointed to alleged failures at the jail, but the plaintiffs claimed the hospital’s negligence was also responsible for Newman's death.

In a March 27 order, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer agreed Southwest Memorial Hospital could not be held liable for any negligence by Davidson, nor had the plaintiffs shown the hospital's own protocols were negligent.

However, the hospital still remains subject to other claims, including an alleged violation of Newman's constitutional rights.

The lawsuit alleges Newman arrived at the hospital and interacted with Nurse Jennifer Gaddis, who is not a defendant. Gaddis allegedly failed to properly note Newman's intoxication. After "about 10 minutes," Davidson then cleared Newman to return to the jail, writing he had "no specific suggestions regarding the care of the prisoner."

Newman repeatedly asked to return to the hospital and the next morning, he complained to jail deputies about symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. Newman's cellmate called for help after Newman became unresponsive, and Newman died shortly after noon that day at age 30.

"Mr. Newman’s death was a highly predictable consequence of County Defendants’ failure to have any medical staff on-site on the weekends," wrote the plaintiffs' attorneys, "its failure to ensure proper medical screening on intake, its failure to implement an appropriate alcohol withdrawal or other medical emergency protocol, and its failure to use any medical protocols for formal monitoring and treatment of detainees facing withdrawal symptoms or acute changes/worsening in condition after they were booked."

Southwest Memorial Hospital moved to dismiss the negligence claim against it. Under the "corporate practice of medicine doctrine," which separates corporate medical providers from their physicians to prevent conflicts of interest, the hospital argued it could not be held liable for any negligence on Davidson's part.

"Dr. Davidson testified (and Plaintiffs allege) that it was entirely his decision that Mr. Newman was stable for incarceration based on his medical assessment and judgment," wrote the hospital's lawyers. "Plaintiffs’ entire theory of causation as to the medical care at the hospital is built on Dr. Davidson’s medical decision making."

The plaintiffs countered that the hospital should have educated staff about the "lack of monitoring" Newman would receive at the jail.

"It is crucial that hospitals train and inform their staff about the healthcare resources at the facility they are sending patients to, so that staff can consider such conditions when determining whether to admit or discharge a patient," wrote the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Brimmer agreed with the hospital that Davidson's own alleged negligence could not automatically implicate Southwest Memorial Hospital. Even if Gaddis failed to adequately document Newman's intoxication, Brimmer pointed to Davidson's testimony that the additional information would be "not relevant" to his decision-making.

Although the plaintiffs' expert witnesses believed the hospital did not provide the required level of care through the failure to properly assess Newman or issue discharge instructions tailored to Newman's condition, Brimmer concluded the evidence was not specific enough.

"Expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care where the standard of care is not within the common knowledge of the ordinary juror," he wrote. "However, plaintiffs have cited no expert testimony concerning the standard of care for training staff about medical clearances for incarceration or developing discharge protocols and systems for communicating with the jail."

The discovery of evidence in the case is ongoing and a pretrial conference is scheduled for January 2025.

The case is Estate of Kelroy Newman v. Board of County Commissioners et al.