Following the death of William Hayden Schuck (“Schuck”) in San Diego County Central Jail during the morning of March 16, 2022, Schuck’s parents, Sabrina and Timothy Schuck, on behalf of Schuck’s Estate and in their individual capacities as Schuck’s next of kin, brought several claims against the County of San Diego (“the County”), Correctional Healthcare Partners (“CHP”), Nurse Practitioner Nicholas Kahl (“Kahl”), and various county employees alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the California Bane Act (Cal. Gov’t Code § 52.1), and various state tort law claims including negligence and wrongful death. The Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Compalint (SAC”) added Kahl as a named defendant and alleged that Kahl was, at all relevant times, a CHP employee contracted by the San Diego Sheriff’s Department in the Medical Services Division at the San Diego County Jail.
On March 15, 2022, four days after Schuck’s hospitalization at UCSD, Kahl allegedly reviewed the “After Visit Summary” and requested Schuck’s complete record from UCSD including all physician notes. Plaintiffs alleged that Kahl “should have reviewed [Schuck’s] hospital records as soon as they were scanned into the system as part of the screening process,” and that “[b]ased on [Schuck’s] medical records, Kahl should have known … of [Schuck’s] serious medical issues and failed to … summon medical case.”
Defendants CHP and Kahl filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
In its Order filed on July 19, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Kahl’s motion to dismiss, stating “Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the records Kahl viewed contained enough
information to put Kahl on notice of Schuck’s serious medical conditions or that Kahl ever viewed (or had access to) Schuck’s jail medical records which could have put Kahl on notice of Schuck’s serious medical conditions … Plaintiffs do not allege the content of the After Visit Summary or explain why it should have put Kahl on notice of Schuck’s serious medical issues. Without such allegations, the Court is not in a position to assess whether Kahl’s actions after reading the After Visit Summary could plausibly have been “objectively unreasonable” in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment … Plaintiffs also never plainly allege that Kahl viewed Schuck’s jail medical records or even had access to jail medical records.”
The federal court concluded “Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that Kahl acted with deliberate indifference to Schuck’s serious medical condition in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment … Plaintiffs do not sufficiently plead that Kahl acted with deliberate indifference and in reckless disregard to Schuck’s health … Plaintiffs do not allege the content of the After Visit Summary or explain why it should have put Kahl on notice of Schuck’s serious medical issues.
Without such allegations, the Court is not in a position to assess whether Kahl’s actions after reading the After Visit Summary could plausibly have been “objectively unreasonable” in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment … Plaintiffs also never plainly allege that Kahl viewed Schuck’s jail medical records or even had access to jail medical records … The SAC falls short of plausibly alleging that Kahl breached a duty of care owed to Schuck because, as explained above, Plaintiffs do not allege the contents of the After Visit Summary or that Kahl viewed or had access to Schuck’s jail medical records. The allegations against Kahl are too conclusory to state a negligence claim.”
With regard to CHP’s motion to dismiss, the federal court stated “Plaintiffs plausibly allege Monell claims against CHP based on a longstanding practices theory and a failure-to-train theory. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to
dismiss CHP from Counts 3–4.”
Source Schuck v. County of San Diego, Case No.: 23-cv-785-DMS-AHG.
If you or a loved one were harmed due to the lack of appropriate medical care while in jail in California or in another U.S. state, you should promptly seek the legal advice of a California jail malpractice lawyer or a jail malpractice lawyer in your state who may investigate your jail malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a jail malpractice case, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to be connected with prisoner rights lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
