Zhang v. The City of New York

Background

Zhiquan Zhang was detained at Rikers Island beginning in April 2015. Medical staff treated him for hypertension, high cholesterol, and lower-back pain. He complained of chest pain on two documented occasions. On June 9, 2015, staff performed an electrocardiogram and chest X-ray and diagnosed pleuritis and costochondritis. On September 5, 2015, staff gave him aspirin and nitroglycerin, performed an electrocardiogram, and sent him to Lincoln Hospital. Hospital testing showed normal sinus rhythms, no acute chest X-ray changes, and negative cardiac enzymes; Zhang was discharged and told to follow up with his physician. He died in custody on April 18, 2016. The autopsy attributed his death to hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Man Zhang and Chunman Zhang, individually and as administrators of Zhang’s estate, filed suit. By the summary-judgment stage, the remaining defendants were the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, Rikers Island Facilities, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, and Corizon Health, Inc. The remaining federal claim was under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged deliberate indifference to a pretrial detainee’s medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs also had state-law claims for wrongful death, negligence, and medical malpractice.

Federal Claim and Municipal Liability

The plaintiffs pursued municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. That theory requires an underlying constitutional violation by a person acting under state law that can be attributed to a municipal custom, policy, or practice. The court explained that a municipality cannot be liable under this theory without an underlying constitutional violation, even though the plaintiffs were not required to sue the individual medical providers directly.

The court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that the unnamed medical staff acted under color of state law. It nevertheless held that the plaintiffs had not produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference. The court assumed that the possible failure to provide a cardiac stress test satisfied the requirement that Zhang had an objectively serious medical need. But deliberate indifference required more than negligence or medical malpractice: an individual medical provider must have intentionally or recklessly failed to act despite knowing, or having reason to know, that the failure created an excessive health risk.

The court found that the record showed medical staff responded to both documented chest-pain complaints. Staff evaluated Zhang in June 2015, and on September 5 they transferred him to a hospital for further testing. The court also found that staff treated Zhang’s hypertension and high cholesterol, including prescribing medication, monitoring his conditions, and increasing the dosage of his cholesterol medication after follow-up testing. The plaintiffs’ evidence that Zhang complained about chest pain to family members or another detainee did not show that medical staff knew about those complaints. Evidence concerning his shoulder, hand, and back pain likewise did not identify a medical provider who knowingly disregarded an acute cardiac condition.

The court considered the plaintiffs’ arguments about language barriers but concluded that the record showed medical staff generally obtained basic information through Mandarin interpreters, other detainees, or Zhang’s verbal and nonverbal communication. The plaintiffs did not identify a particular medical staff member who deliberately disregarded Zhang’s needs because of communication difficulties. The court also concluded that the expert criticism that staff failed to fully review Zhang’s medical history might support a malpractice theory, but it did not establish deliberate indifference.

Other Defendants and Claims

The court dismissed all claims against NYDOC, Rikers Island Facilities, NYCHHC Does 11–20, and Corizon Does 21–30 in their entirety with prejudice. It explained that the two facility-related defendants were not suable entities and that the plaintiffs had not timely identified and joined the unnamed medical defendants. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to expand the case to medical treatment at Lincoln Hospital because that theory had not been pleaded and was raised too late.

The court granted in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the section 1983 claim. Because no underlying constitutional violation remained, the Monell claim against the remaining municipal defendants could not proceed. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law wrongful-death, negligence, and medical-malpractice claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the court stated that the dismissal would not prevent the plaintiffs from refiling them in state court. The court also noted that the limitations period had been tolled during the federal action and for thirty days after dismissal.

Other Motions and Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude the report and affidavit of the defendants’ expert, Dr. Stanley J. Schneller. The court said it did not rely on the expert’s opinion concerning deliberate indifference and therefore did not need to decide whether that opinion was an improper legal conclusion. The defendants’ motions to preclude the affirmation of the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. David A. Hess, and to strike the declarations of Man and Chunman Zhang were denied as moot.

Judge Kevin Castel directed the Clerk to terminate the listed motions and close the case.