throbber

`
`THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`WORCESTER,ss.
`
`WORCESTER SUPERIOR COURT
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`?
`
`eeaAaeaeaeeeeeaaaaa
`
`CATHY BUDRY,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`KELLY ROBINSON, MD, REID
`MOTHA,PA, ELLEN M. RAY, MD,
`STACEY BRACKETT,RN, JESSICA
`BOUTELL, RN, HEYWOOD
`HEALTHCARE,INC., d/b/a
`HEYWOOD HOSPITAL,
`HEYWOOD MEDICAL GROUP,INC.,
`and HEYWOODPHYSICIAN HOSPITAL
`ORGANIZATION,INC.
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT &
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`MAY 22 2023
`
`ATTEST Miwa
`
`J WWE. CLEA
`
`1. The plaintiff, Cathy Budry, is an individual residing in Worcester, Worcester County,
`
`PARTIES
`
`Massachusetts.
`
`2. At all times material hereto, the defendant, Heywood Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a Heywood
`
`Hospital, was a Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business located in
`
`Gardner, Worcester County, Massachusetts, which operated a hospital therein known as
`
`“Heywood Hospital”.
`
`3. Atall times material hereto, the defendant, Heywood Medical Group,Inc., was a
`
`Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business located in Gardner,
`
`Worcester County, Massachusetts, that was owned by, controlled by, and/oraffiliated
`
`Page 1 of 23
`
`

`

`with, Heywood Hospital, and which provided medical services to patients, through its
`
`employees, contractors and/or agents, at Heywood Hospital.
`
`. Atall times material hereto, the defendant, Heywood Physician Hospital Organization,
`
`Inc., was a Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business located in
`
`Gardner, Worcester County, Massachusetts, that was ownedby, controlled by, and/or
`
`affiliated with, Heywood Hospital, and which provided medical services to patients,
`
`through its employees, contractors and/or agents, at Heywood Hospital.
`
`. The defendant, Kelly Robinson, MD, maintains both a residence and a usual place of
`
`business in Gardner, Worcester County, Massachusetts, and was, at all times material
`
`hereto, a licensed physician holding himself out as a medical doctor specializing in
`
`internal medicine and emergency medicine, and an attending physician working at
`
`Heywood Hospital.
`
`. The defendant, Ellen M. Ray, MD, maintains a residence in Winchendon, Worcester
`
`County, Massachusetts, and a usual place of business in Gardner, Worcester County,
`
`Massachusetts, and was, at all times material hereto, a licensed physician holding herself
`
`out as a medical doctor specializing in internal medicine and emergency medicine, and
`
`Chief of Emergency Services at Heywood Hospital.
`
`. The defendant, Reid Motha, PA, maintains a residence in Gill, Franklin County,
`
`Massachusetts, and a usual place of business in Gardner, Worcester County,
`
`Massachusetts, and was, at all times material hereto, a certified physician’s assistant
`
`working in the Emergency Department at Heywood Hospital.
`
`Page 2 of 23
`
`

`

`The defendant, Stacey Brackett, RN, maintains a residence in Hubbardston, Worcester
`
`County, Massachusetts, and a usual place of business in Gardner, Worcester County,
`
`Massachusetts, and was,at all times material hereto, a registered nurse working in the
`
`Emergency Department at Heywood Hospital.
`
`The defendant, Jessica Boutell, RN, maintains both a residence and a usualplace of
`
`business in Gardner, Worcester County, Massachusetts and was, at all times material
`
`hereto, a registered nurse working in the Emergency Department at Heywood Hospital.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`10.
`
`On June 23, 2020, at or about 6:00 p.m., the plaintiff, Ms. Cathy Budry, presented at the
`
`Emergency Department at Heywood Hospital in Gardner, MA.
`
`11.
`
`Ms. Budry screened negative for Covid-19 and was admitted to the Emergency
`
`Department where the defendants, Ellen M. Ray, MD, Kelly Robinson, MD, Reid Motha,
`
`PA,Stacéy Brackett, RN, and Jessica Boutell, RN, participated in the evaluation, care
`
`and treatment of Ms. Budry.
`
`12.
`
`At the time of her presentation, Ms. Budry was suffering from multiple spinal epidural
`
`abscesses (“SEAs”), and was displaying signs and symptoms of SEA(s), a bacterial
`
`infection(s) in the spinal canal that can grow and expand quickly, causing neurological
`
`injury by:compressing the spinal cord.
`
`13.
`
`At the time of her presentation, Ms. Budry was known to the defendants to have a prior
`
`history of SEA(s), and to be an intravenous drug user (““IVDU”), and for these reasons to
`
`be at a higherrisk for SEA(s).
`
`Page 3 of 23
`
`

`

`14. In June of 2020, SEA was known to physicians and medical providers to be a rapidly
`
`progressive condition that constituted a medical emergency requiring prompt diagnosis
`
`and treatmentin order to prevent devastating neurological injury, permanentparalysis
`
`and/or death.
`
`15. In June of 2020, the earlier an SEA(s) could be diagnosed andtreated, via surgical
`
`intervention/decompression and antibiotics, the better the medical outcome for the
`
`patient, as such treatment would halt neurological injury and permit the patient to retain
`
`function.
`
`16. In June of 2020, the defendants were aware that an SEA(s) left undiagnosed and
`
`untreated until the onset of paralysis was morelikely to result in permanentparalysis
`
`and/orlimited restitution of function in the patient, even with surgical intervention.
`
`17. At the time of Ms. Budry’s presentation at Heywood Hospital, the medical standard(s) of
`
`care required an emergency and/orinternal medicine physician, physician’s assistant,
`
`and/or registered nurse, to recognize the signs and symptoms of SEA(s), and to suspect
`
`SEA(s) in patients presenting with Ms. Budry’s signs and symptomsand/or prior medical
`
`history.
`
`18. At the time of Ms. Budry’s presentation at Heywood, the applicable medical standard(s)
`
`of care required the average qualified emergency and/or internal medicine physician,
`
`Physician's assistant, and/or registered nurse, when presented with a patient with Ms.
`Budry’s signs and symptomsand/orpriorhistory, to suspect SEA(s) and to seek and/or
`
`order an emergent MRI, and/or admit the patient for observation until SEA(s) was ruled
`
`out or confirmed by MRI, and/or to order or request an infectious disease and/or
`
`Page 4 of 23
`
`

`

`neurological/neurosurgical consultation, which would likely similarly result in an MRI
`
`being ordered.
`
`19.
`
`Atthe time of Ms. Budry’s presentation, MRI wasthe standard ofcare for the diagnosis
`
`of SEA becauseit provided superior visualization, could detect SEA early in the course,
`
`and could distinguish SEA from other conditions.
`
`20.
`
`Notwithstanding Ms. Budry’s signs and symptoms, and/or her known medicalhistory,
`
`and notwithstanding the seriousness and emergent nature of SEA, and that time was of
`
`the essence, none of Ms. Budry’s providers at Heywood — including Ellen M. Ray, MD,
`
`Kelly Robinson, MD, Reid Motha, PA, Stacey Brackett, RN, and Jessica Boutell, RN -
`
`recognized or appreciated Ms. Budry’s signs/symptoms of SEA(s), sought or ordered an
`
`MRI, admitted her inpatient for observation until SEA(s) wasruled out or confirmed by
`
`MRI, or ordered an infectious disease or neurological/neurosurgical consultation.
`
`21.
`
`Instead, a CT without contrast, ineffective for detecting SEA and below the standard of
`
`care, was ordered, and aboutthree (3) hourslater, after having reviewed “documentation
`
`ofthe patient’s history, exam findings, diagnostics, interventions and procedures” —
`including the radiologist’s report recommending MRI - Dr. Kelly Robinson discharged
`
`Ms.Budry to home with her symptoms“unchanged”, and with an incomplete or incorrect
`
`diagnosis of “cervical disc disorder with radiculopathy, unspecified cervical region”, and
`
`with no scheduled follow-up.
`
`22.
`
`Hercondition having not been properly diagnosedor treated, about forty-eight (48) hours
`
`later, on the evening of June 25, 2020, Ms. Budry presented again at the Emergency
`
`Department at Heywood Hospital, via ambulance, with signs and symptoms“similar” to
`
`Page 5 of 23
`
`

`

`those she presented with on June 23, 2020, and with the onset ofparalysis — she was
`
`evaluated: and treated by the defendant, Ellen M. Ray, MD.
`
`23.
`
`Dr. Ray diagnosed Ms. Budry with “cauda equina syndrome”and arranged for her
`
`immediate “epidural abscess” transfer to Baystate Medical Center that same night for a
`
`“higher level of care”, including neurological consultation and MRI.
`
`24.
`
`After arriving at Baystate Medical Center by ambulance at about midnight on June 26,
`
`2020, MRI(s) revealed the multiple SEA(s) in the plaintiffs cervical, thoracic and/or
`lumbar spine, and she underwentsurgical intervention and decompression —
`
`unfortunately, due to the missed, delayed and/or late diagnoses at Heywood Hospital,
`
`surgical intervention could not prevent respiratory failure and/or result in any material
`
`functional restitution for the plaintiff, and she was caused to be, and remainsto this day, a
`
`quadriplegic.
`
`25.
`
`Ever since June 25, 2020, and as a result ofher quadriplegia, Ms. Budry has required
`
`constant hospitalization(s) and medical monitoring, has suffered total physical disability
`
`and loss of mobility, and has further suffered, and remainsat risk for, additional
`
`complications and sequalae associated with her condition(s).
`
`26.
`
`Had the plaintiffs treatment providers at Heywood Hospital acted in accordance with the
`applicable medical standards of care on June 23, 2020,the plaintiff's SEA(s) would have
`been timely diagnosed and promptly treated prior to the onset ofparalysis and/or before the
`
`occurrenceofsignificant neurologicalinjury, and she would haveretaineda full or substantial
`
`level of function, and not have suffered the degree of neurological injury, respiratory
`
`paralysis, incontinence and permanent quadriplegia that she has.
`
`Page 6 of 23
`
`

`

`27. The requirements of G.L. c. 231,§ 60L, have been satisfied, by reason ofthe plaintiff
`
`serving a sufficient written “Notice of Intent to File Medical Malpractice Action(s)”
`
`uponthe parties-defendantin this case within the statutory timeframe, and/or by reason
`
`of the defendants informing plaintiffs counsel in writing that they do not intend tosettle
`
`the claim(s) within the applicable notice period, and/or becausetheplaintiff is exempt
`
`from said requirements pursuant to § 60L(j) as this lawsuit is being filed within six (6)
`
`monthsofthestatute oflimitations expiring as to any claimant, and/or by reason of other
`
`statutory and/or common-law exemption(s).
`
`COUNT 1 — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCEvs. KELLY ROBINSON, MD
`
`28. The plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through twenty-
`
`seven (27) and, by this reference, incorporates the sameherein.
`
`29. At all times material hereto, and on June 23, 2020, a physician-patient relationship
`
`existed between the defendant, Kelly Robinson, MD,andthe plaintiff, Cathy Budry.
`
`30. Atall times material hereto, and on June 23, 2020, Kelly Robinson, MD, owed the
`
`plaintiff a duty to exercise the reasonable care and skill of the average qualified internist
`
`and/or emergency physician in accordance with the applicable medical standard(s) of
`
`care, which included recognizing and appreciating the plaintiff's prior history and signs
`
`and symptoms of SEA(s), suspecting SEA(s) on theplaintiffs hospital presentation,
`
`ordering an emergent MRI, admitting the plaintiff as an inpatient and observingher until
`
`SEA(s) could be ruled out or confirmed by MRI, and/or ordering an infectious disease
`
`and/or neurological/neurosurgical consultation(s) that would likely have resulted in an
`
`MRI beingordered.
`
`Page 7 of 23
`
`

`

`31.
`
`The defendant, Kelly Robinson, MD, breachedthis duty of care, and fell below the
`
`medical standard(s) ofcare, in failing to recognize and appreciate the plaintiff's prior
`
`history arid signs/symptoms of SEA(s), in failing to suspect SEA(s) on her hospital
`
`presentation,in failing to order an emergent MRI,in failing to admit the plaintiff as an
`
`inpatient and observe her until SEA(s) could be ruled out or confirmed by MRI,in failing
`
`to order an infectious disease and/or neurological/neurosurgical consultation(s), in
`
`discharging the plaintiff with an incomplete and/or incorrect diagnosis and with her
`
`symptoms unchanged, and in missing the SEA(s) diagnosis andfailing to treat her
`
`SEA(s) in any way.
`
`32.
`
`The missed diagnosis by, and negligent acts and omissions of, Kelly Robinson, MD,
`
`and/or his departures from the medical standards of care, were not (1) permitted by, or
`
`made pursuant to, an official state or federal Covid-19 emergency rule(s) that waived,
`
`suspended or modified the otherwise applicable standardsofcarerelating to the
`
`| plaintiffs treatment, or (ii) in fact caused or impacted by decisions made pursuant to such
`
`a rule(s), and/or treatment conditions resulting from the Covid-19 outbreak,or (iii) made
`
`in good faith consistent with the guidelines for crisis standards of care for the Covid-19
`
`pandemic issued by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (“DPH”), nor were
`
`suchcrisis standards of care formally activated with DPHat the time, and/or in force or
`
`triggered.
`
`33.
`
`Asa direct and proximate result of said acts and omissions of Kelly Robinson, MD,the
`
`plaintiffs SEAs remained undiagnosed and untreated fora critical period of time, and
`
`thereby were permitted to expand and causeirreversible spinal cord injury to the plaintiff,
`
`depriving her of a better medical outcome, causing her to suffer, and to continue to suffer
`
`Page 8 of 23
`
`

`

`from, pain, permanentparalysis, quadriplegia, mental anguish,disability, related
`
`complications and sequalae, and to incur, and to continue to incur, substantial medical
`
`expense(s).
`
`WHEREFORE,theplaintiff prays judgment against the defendant, Kelly Robinson, MD,
`
`for the above-described harms, with awards of damages, attorneys' fees, interest and
`
`costs.
`
`COUNT 2 — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE vs. ELLEN M. RAY, MD
`
`34.
`
`The plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through thirty-three
`
`(33) and, by this reference, incorporates the sameherein.
`
`35.
`
`Atall times material hereto, and on June 23, 2020, a physician-patient relationship
`
`existed between the defendant, Ellen M. Ray, MD,andthe plaintiff, Cathy Budry.
`
`36.
`
`At all times material hereto, and on June 23, 2020, Ellen M. Ray, MD, owedthe plaintiff
`
`a duty to exercise the reasonable care and skill of the average qualified internist and/or
`
`emergency physician in accordance with the applicable medical standard(s) ofcare,
`
`which included recognizing and appreciating the plaintiffs prior history and
`signs/symptoms of SEA(s), suspecting SEA(s) on the plaintiff’s hospital presentation,
`
`ordering an emergent MRI, admitting her as an inpatient and observing heruntil SEA(s)
`
`could be ruled out or confirmed by MRI,and/orordering an infectious disease and/or
`
`neurological/neurosurgical consultation(s) that would likely have resulted in an MRI
`
`being ordered.
`
`37.
`
`The defendant, Ellen M. Ray, MD, breached this duty of care, and fell below the medical
`
`standard(s) of care, in failing to recognize and appreciate the plaintiff's prior history and
`
`Page 9 of 23
`
`

`

`signs/symptoms of SEA(s),in failing to suspect SEA(s) on herhospital presentation, in
`
`failing to ‘order an emergent MRI, in failing to admit the plaintiff as an inpatient and
`
`observe her until SEA(s) could be ruled out or confirmed by MRI,in failing to order an
`
`infectious disease and/or neurological/neurosurgical consultation(s), in causing or
`
`permitting the plaintiff's discharge with an incomplete and/or incorrect diagnosis and
`
`with her symptoms unchanged, and in missing the SEA(s) diagnosis andfailing to treat
`
`the plaintiff's SEA(s) in any way.
`
`38.
`
`The missed diagnosis by, and negligent acts and omissionsof, Ellen M. Ray, MD,and/or
`
`her departures from the medical standards of care, were not (i) permitted by, or made
`
`pursuantto, an official state or federal Covid-19 emergency rule(s) that waived,
`
`suspended or modified the otherwise applicable standardsofcare relating to the
`
`plaintiffs treatment, or (ii) in fact caused or impacted by decisions made pursuant to such
`
`a rule(s), and/or treatment conditions resulting from the Covid-19 outbreak,or (111) made
`
`in good faith consistent with the guidelines for crisis standards of care for the Covid-19
`pandemic issued by DPH,nor were such crisis standards ofcare formally activated with
`
`DPHat the time and/orin force ortriggered.
`
`39.
`
`Asa direct and proximateresult of said acts and omissions of Ellen M. Ray, MD,the
`
`plaintiffs SEAs remained undiagnosed and untreated for a critical period of time, and
`
`thereby were permitted to expand andcauseirreversible spinal cord injury to the plaintiff,
`
`depriving her of a better medical outcome, causing her to suffer, and to continue to suffer
`
`from, pain, permanentparalysis, quadriplegia, mental anguish, disability, related
`complications and sequalae, and to incur, and to continue to incur, substantial medical
`
`expense(s).
`
`Page 10 of 23
`
`

`

`WHEREFORE,theplaintiff prays judgment against the defendant, Ellen M. Ray, MD,
`
`for the above-described harms, with awards of damages, attorneys' fees, interest and
`
`costs.
`
`COUNT 3 — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCEvs. REID MOTHA, PA
`
`40.
`
`Theplaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs one(1) through thirty-nine
`
`(39) and, by this reference, incorporates the sameherein.
`
`41.
`
`At all times material hereto, and on June 23, 2020, a physician’s assistant-patient
`
`relationship existed between the defendant, Reid Motha, PA, and the plaintiff, Cathy
`
`Budry.
`
`42.
`
`Atall times material hereto, Reid Motha, PA, owedthe plaintiff a duty to exercise the
`
`reasonable care and skill of the average qualified physician’s assistant in accordance with
`
`the applicable medical standard(s) of care, which included recognizing and appreciating
`
`the plaintiff's prior medical history and signs/symptoms of SEA(s), and advisinghis
`
`supervising physician(s) thereof, as well as ordering, or advising his supervising
`
`physician(s) to order, an emergent MRI, admitting the plaintiff as an inpatient and
`
`observing her until SEA(s) could be ruled out or confirmed by MRI,and/oradvisinghis
`
`supervising physician(s) to do so, and/or ordering or requesting an infectious disease
`
`and/or neurological/neurosurgical consultation(s), and/or recommending the sameto his
`
`supervising physician(s).
`
`43.
`
`The defendant, Reid Motha, PA, breached this duty of care, and fell below the medical
`
`standard(s) ofcare, in failing to recognize and appreciate the plaintiff's prior history and
`
`signs/symptoms of SEA(s), andin failing to sufficiently advise his supervising
`
`Page 11 of 23
`
`

`

`physician(s) ofthe same, in failing to order an emergent MRI, and/or to advise his
`
`supervising physician(s) to do so, in failing to admit the plaintiff as an inpatient and
`
`observe her until SEA(s) could be ruled out or confirmed by MRI, and/or advising his
`
`supervising physician(s) to do the same,in failing to order or request an infectious
`
`disease and/or neurological/neurosurgical consultation(s), in causing and/or permitting
`
`the plaintiffto be discharged with an incomplete and/or incorrect diagnosis and with her
`
`symptoms unchanged, and in missing the SEA(s) diagnosis andfailing to treat the
`
`plaintiff's SEA(s) in any way.
`
`44.
`
`The missed diagnosis by, and negligent acts and omissions of, Reid Motha, PA, and/or
`
`his departures from the medical standards of care, were not (i) permitted by, or made
`
`pursuant to, an official state or federal Covid-19 emergency rule(s) that waived,
`
`suspended or modified the otherwise applicable standardsof care relating to the
`
`plaintiff's treatment, or(ii) in fact caused or impacted by decisions made pursuant to such
`
`a rule(s), and/or treatment conditions resulting from the Covid-19 outbreak, or (iii) made
`
`in good faith consistent with the guidelines for crisis standards of care for the Covid-19
`
`pandemic issued by DPH,nor were suchcrisis standards of care formally activated with
`
`DPHatthe time and/orin force ortriggered.
`
`45.
`
`Asa direct and proximate result of said acts and omissions of Reid Motha, PA,the
`plaintiff5 SEAsremained undiagnosed and untreated for a critical period oftime, and
`
`thereby were permitted to expand and causeirreversible spinal cord injury to the plaintiff,
`
`depriving her of a better medical outcome,causing herto suffer, and to continueto suffer
`
`from, pain, permanentparalysis, quadriplegia, mental anguish,disability, related
`
`Page 12 of 23
`
`

`

`complications and sequalae, and to incur, and to continue to incur, substantial medical
`
`expense(s).
`
`WHEREFORE,the plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant, Reid Motha, PA, for
`
`the above-described harms, with awards of damages, attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.
`
`COUNT 4-— NEGLIGENCEvs.
`STACEY BRACKETT, RN & JESSICA BOUTELL, RN
`
`46.
`
`Theplaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through forty-five
`
`(45) and, by this reference, incorporates the same herein.
`
`47.
`
`Atall times material hereto, and on June 23, 2020, a nurse-patient relationship existed
`
`betweentheplaintiff, Cathy Budry, and the defendants, Stacey Brackett, RN, and Jessica
`
`Boutell, RN.
`
`48.
`
`Atall times material hereto, the defendants, Stacey Brackett, RN, and Jessica Boutell,
`
`RN,were assignedto care for the plaintiff and owed her a duty to exercise the reasonable
`
`care and skill of the average qualified registered nurse(s) in accordance with the
`
`applicable medical standard(s) of care and good nursingpractices, which included
`
`recognizing, appreciating and documentingthe plaintiffs prior medical history and
`
`signs/symptoms of SEA(s) on her hospital presentation, and properly advising the
`
`attending physicians andassistants thereof, as well as advising the physicians and/or
`
`assistants of the need to order an MRI and/or admitthe plaintiff until SEA(s) could be
`
`ruled out or confirmed by MRI,and/or of the need for ordering or requesting an
`
`infectious disease and/or neurological/neurosurgical consultation(s), and/or to repeat vital
`
`signs, make and properly documentfurther observationsofthe plaintiff's signs/symptoms
`
`Page 13 of 23
`
`

`

`of SEA(s), and otherwise elevate concerns of symptoms/signs of SEA(s) and suspicion
`
`for SEA(s) to the attention of other providers at the hospital.
`
`49.
`
`The defendants, Stacey Brackett, RN, and Jessica Boutell, RN, breached this duty of care,
`
`and fell below the medical standard(s) ofcare, in failing to recognize, appreciate and
`
`documenttheplaintiffs prior history and signs/symptoms of SEA(s), andin failing to
`
`sufficiently advise the plaintiff's physician(s) and physicians’ assistant(s) of the same,in
`
`failing to advise the plaintiff's physician(s) and assistants to admit the plaintiff as an
`
`inpatient and observeher until SEA(s) could be ruled out or confirmed by MRI, in failing
`
`to advise them to request an infectious disease and/or neurological/neurosurgical
`
`consultation(s), in failing to repeat vital signs and properly obtain and documentfurther
`
`observationsof the plaintiff's signs/symptoms of SEA(s),in failing to sufficiently elevate
`
`concerns of symptoms/signs of SEA(s) to the attention of other providers, in causing
`
`and/or permitting the plaintiff to be discharged from the hospital with an incomplete
`
`and/or incorrect diagnosis and with her symptoms unchanged, and in missing the SEA(s)
`
`diagnosis andfailing to treat the plaintiff's SEA(s) in any way.
`
`50
`
`. The negligent acts and omissions of the defendants, Stacey Brackett, RN, and Jessica
`
`Boutell, RN, and/or their departures from the medical standards of care, were not (1)
`
`permitted by, or made pursuantto, an official state or federal Covid-19 emergencyrule(s)
`
`that waived, suspended or modified the otherwise applicable standardsofcare relating to
`
`the plaintiff's treatment, or (ii) in fact caused or impacted by decisions made pursuant to
`
`such a rule(s), and/or treatment conditions resulting from the Covid-19 outbreak,or(iii)
`
`made in goodfaith consistent with the guidelines for crisis standards of care for the
`
`Page 14 of 23
`
`

`

`Covid-19 pandemic issued by DPH,nor were suchcrisis standards of care formally
`
`activated|with DPH atthe time and/orin forceortriggered.
`
`51.
`
`Asa direct and proximate result of said acts and omissions of Stacey Brackett, RN, and
`
`Jessica Boutell, RN,the plaintiff's SEAs remained undiagnosed and untreated for a
`
`critical period oftime, and thereby were permitted to expand and causeirreversible spinal
`
`cord. injury to the plaintiff, depriving her of a better medical outcome, causing herto
`suffer, and to continue to suffer from, pain, permanent paralysis, quadriplegia, mental
`anguish, disability, related complications and sequalae, and to incur, and to continue to
`
`incur, substantial medical expense(s).
`
`WHEREFORE, the plaintiffprays judgment against the defendants, Stacey Brackett, RN,
`and Jessica Boutell, RN, for the above-described harms, with awards of damages,
`
`attorneys! fees, interest and costs.
`
`COUNT 5— NEGLIGENT SUPERVISIONvs.
`KELLY ROBINSON, MD & ELLEN M. RAY, MD
`
`52.
`
`Theplaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs one(1) throughfifty-one
`
`(51) and, by this reference, incorporates the same herein.
`
`53.
`
`Atall timies material hereto, the defendants, Kelly Robinson, MD,and/or Ellen Ray, MD,
`owed a duty to the plaintiff, and were obliged by law and the applicable medical
`standards ofcare, to properly supervise Reid Motha, PA, and/or the other medicalstaffat
`Heywood Hospital whoparticipated in the evaluation, care and treatment ofthe plaintiff,
`in order to ensure that they provided medical servicesto the plaintiffin accordance with
`
`accepted medical standardsofcare.
`
`Page 15 of 23
`
`

`

`54.
`
`The defendants, Kelly Robinson, MD,and/or Ellen Ray, MD,each individually and/or in
`
`combination, acted negligently in failing to properly supervise and/or monitor Reid
`
`Motha, PA, and/or other medical staff at Heywood Hospital under their supervision,
`
`direction and/or control, to ensure that the medical treatment ofthe plaintiff was in
`
`accordance with accepted medical standards ofcare, causing the plaintiff's SEA(s) to
`
`remain undiagnosed and untreated, and the plaintiff to suffer harm.
`
`55.
`
`The failuie to properly supervise Reid Motha, PA, and/or other medical staff, and/or to
`
`prevent their respective departures from the medical standardsofcare, as before-
`
`mentionedherein, were not (1) permitted by, or made pursuant to, an official state or
`
`federal Covid-19 emergency rule(s) that waived, suspended or modified the otherwise
`
`applicable standards ofcare relating to the plaintiffs treatment, or (ii) in fact caused or
`
`impacted by decisions made pursuant to such a rule(s), and/or treatment conditions
`
`resulting from the Covid-19 outbreak, or (iii) made in good faith consistent with the
`
`guidelines for crisis standards of care for the Covid-19 pandemic issued by DPH,nor
`
`were suchcrisis standards of care formally activated with DPHat the time and/orin force
`
`or triggered.
`
`56.
`
`Asa direct and proximateresult of said negligent acts and omissions of Kelly Robinson,
`
`MD, and/or Ellen M. Ray, MD,in failing to properly supervise Reid Motha, PA, and/or
`
`other medical staff at Heywood Hospital, the plaintiff's SEAs remained undiagnosed and
`
`untreated for a critical period of time, and thereby were permitted to expand and cause
`
`irreversible spinal cord injury to the plaintiff, depriving her of a better medical outcome,
`
`causing her to suffer, and to continue to suffer from, pain, permanentparalysis,
`
`Page 16of 23
`
`

`

`quadriplegia, mental anguish,disability, related complications and sequalae, and to incur,
`
`and to continue to incur, substantial medical expense(s).
`
`WHEREFORE,theplaintiff prays judgment against the defendants, Kelly Robinson,
`
`MD,and Ellen M. Ray, MD for the above-described harms, with awards of damages,
`
`attorneys' fees, interest and costs.
`
`COUNT 6 — GROSS NEGLIGENCEvs. KELLY ROBINSON, MD, ELLEN M. RAY,
`MD, REID MOTHA, PA, STACEY BRACKETT, RN, & JESSICA BOUTELL, RN
`
`37.
`
`Theplaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs one(1) through fifty-six (56)
`
`and, by this reference, incorporates the same herein.
`
`58.
`
`The before-mentioned negligent acts, omissions and departures from the applicable
`
`medical standards of care by the defendants Kelly Robinson, MD, Ellen M. Ray, MD,
`
`Reid Motha, PA, Stacey Brackett, RN, and Jessica Boutell, RN, were especially
`
`egregious and substantially higher in magnitude than ordinary negligence, amounting to
`
`gross negligence, in that these providers simply ignored and/or were inattentive to the
`
`plaintiff's known risks factors for, and obvious indications of, SEA(s), a condition then
`well-known in the medical community to be very serious, and one wherethefailure to
`
`timely diagnose and treat would lead to serious catastrophic injury, permanentparalysis
`
`and/or death.
`
`59.
`
`At all times material hereto, it was highly foreseeable that the before-mentioned failure(s)
`
`of the defendants Kelly Robinson, MD, Ellen M. Ray, MD, Reid Motha, PA, Stacey
`
`Brackett, RN, and Jessica Boutell, RN, to act in accordance with the applicable medical
`
`standard(s) of care, were likely to create an unreasonablerisk of harm to theplaintiff and
`
`result in serious catastrophic injury to her, and thereby amounted to gross negligence.
`
`Page 17 of 23
`
`

`

`60. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of these defendants, the
`
`plaintiff's SEAs remained undiagnosed and untreatedfora critical period of time, and
`
`thereby were permitted to expand and causeirreversible spinal cord injury to the plaintiff,
`
`depriving her of a better medical outcome, causing her to suffer, and to continue to suffer
`
`from, pain, permanentparalysis, quadriplegia, mental anguish, disability, related
`
`complications and sequalae, and to incur, and to continue to incur, substantial medical
`
`expense(s).
`
`WHEREFORE,theplaintiff prays judgment against the defendants, Kelly Robinson,
`
`MD,Ellen M. Ray, MD, Reid Motha, PA, Stacey Brackett, RN, and Jessica Boutell, RN,
`
`for the above-described harms, with awards of damages, attorneys’ fees, interest and
`
`costs.
`
`COUNT 7 — VICARIOUSLIABILITYvs.
`KELLY ROBINSON, MD & ELLEN RAY, MD
`
`61.
`
`Theplaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through sixty (60)
`
`and, by this reference, incorporates the same herein.
`
`62.
`
`Atall times material hereto, the defendants, Kelly Robinson, MD, and/or Ellen Ray, MD,
`
`directed and controlled the activities of Reid Motha, PA, who acted as the former’s agent
`
`and/or apparent/ostensible agent, in the care and treatmentofthe plaintiff.
`
`63
`
`. The defendants, Kelly Robinson, MD, and/or Ellen Ray, MD, by and through their agent,
`
`and/or apparent/ostensible agent, Reid Motha, PA, acted negligently and/or grossly
`
`negligent in providing treatmentto theplaintiff that fell below the medical standard(s) of
`
`care, in failing to recognize and appreciate the plaintiff's medical history and
`
`Page 18 of 23
`
`

`

`signs/symptoms of SEA(s), in failing to order an emergent MRI,in failing to admit the
`
`plaintiff as an inpatient and observe her until SEA(s) could be ruled out or confirmed by
`
`MRI, in failing to order an infectious disease and/or neurological/neurosurgical
`
`consultation(s), in discharging the plaintiff with an incomplete and/or incorrect diagnosis
`
`and with her symptoms unchanged,and in missing the SEA diagnosis andfailing to treat
`
`the plaintiff's SEA(s) in any way.
`
`64.
`
`Asa direct and proximate result of said acts and omissions of Kelly Robinson, MD,
`
`and/or Ellen Ray, MD,through their agent and/or apparent/ostensible agent, Reid Motha,
`
`PA,the plaintiff's SEAs remained undiagnosed and untreatedfora critical period of time,
`
`and thereby were permitted to expand and causeirreversible spinal cord injury to the
`
`plaintiff, depriving her of a better medical outcome, causing her to suffer, and to continue
`
`to suffer from, pain, permanentparalysis, quadriplegia, mental anguish, disability, related
`
`complications and sequalae, and to incur, and to continue to incur, substantial medical
`
`expense(s):
`
`WHEREFORE,theplaintiff prays judgment against the defendants, Kelly Robinson,
`
`MD,and Ellen M. Ray, MD,for the above-described harms, with awards of damages,
`
`attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.
`
`COUNT 8 - VICARIOUS LIABILITY vs. HEYWOOD DEFENDANTS
`
`65.
`
`Theplaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through sixty-four
`
`(64) and, by this reference, incorporates the sameherein.
`
`66.
`
`Atall times material hereto, Heywood Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a Heywood Hospital,
`
`Heywood Medical Group,Inc., and Heywood Physician Hospital Organization, Inc.,
`
`Page 19 of 23
`
`

`

`(hereinafter the “Heywood Defendants”), each individually, and/or in combination,
`
`engagedin, and held themselves out as, providing hospital facilities and/or
`
`medical services to patients at Heywood Hospital, many of whom,includingth

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket