United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
JAMES O. BAXTER, II, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
C. CACHERIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 38]
filed by Defendant United States of America. For the reasons
that follow, the Court will deny the Motion in its entirety.
following allegations of fact set forth in Plaintiff's
Complaint are taken as true for purposes of the present
Motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
James O. Baxter, II, is a former inmate of Federal
Correctional Complex Petersburg (“FCC
Petersburg”). See Am. Comp. [Dkt. 37] ¶
1. His claims arise out of allegedly inadequate medical care
that he received during the period of his incarceration.
December of 2009, Plaintiff complained to FCC
Petersburg's medical staff that he was experiencing
discomfort in his genitals. See id. ¶ 11. He
believed his symptoms to be consistent with Peyronie's
Disease - a disorder characterized by an abnormal and painful
curvature of the penis. See id.; Pl.'s Exh. B
[Dkt. 1-2] at 28.
repeatedly requested to see an urologist over the following
months. Am. Comp. [Dkt. 37] ¶ 12. On March 15, 2010, a
physician's assistant determined without examining
Plaintiff that Plaintiff need not see a specialist.
Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff continued to complain of
discomfort, and was finally permitted to see an urologist on
September 11, 2011. Id. ¶ 14. The urologist
confirmed that Plaintiff was, in fact, suffering from
Peyronie's Disease. Id.
urologist recommended that Plaintiff begin taking vitamin E
and return the following month. See id. Plaintiff,
however, was not permitted to schedule a follow-up
examination with the urologist. Plaintiff learned eight
months after his initial appointment that the urologist's
contract with FCC Petersburg had been terminated.
Id. ¶ 15. The prison medical staff refused to
permit Plaintiff to see an outside specialist, requiring that
he wait for FCC Petersburg to contract a new urologist.
Id. ¶ 16.
FCC Petersburg retained a new urologist and Plaintiff was
permitted to see him. The urologist found that Plaintiff
continued to suffer from Peyronie's Disease and suggested
that Plaintiff contact him if Plaintiff's symptoms
worsened. Am. Comp. Exh. A [Dkt. 37-1] at 3.
continued to request treatment, and was permitted to see an
urologist again on June of 2012. Am. Comp. [Dkt. 37]
¶¶ 17-19; Am. Comp. Exh. B [Dkt. 37-2] at 2. During
this visit, the urologist requested radiological imaging of
Plaintiff's genitals. Am. Comp. [Dkt. 37] ¶ 20. Due
to administrative delays and an error on the part of the
testing facility, the imaging was not completed until April
of 2013. See id. ¶¶ 20-26.
that same time, Plaintiff was informed that a new treatment
for Peyronie's Disease would become available in November
of 2013. Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiff submitted a
request to undergo the new treatment to Dr. K. Laybourne, a
member of FCC Petersburg's medical staff. See
id. ¶ 27. Dr. Laybourne, however, did not submit
Plaintiff's request to FCC Petersburg's
administration until several months after the date by which
Plaintiff had hoped to begin treatment. See id.
¶¶ 28-33. When Dr. Laybourne finally did submit the
request, Plaintiff alleges that she mischaracterized the
urologist's findings and as a result the request for
treatment was denied. See id. ¶¶ 34-35.
August of 2013, Plaintiff was not permitted any further
appointments with an urologist during the period of his
incarceration. Id. ¶ 48. Plaintiff was,
however, permitted examinations with non-specialist members
of FCC Petersburg's medical staff. See id.
¶ 49. During one of these visits, Plaintiff learned that
medication prescribed to him three years earlier for an
unrelated condition had potentially contributed to his
Peyronie's Disease. Id.
months after his release from custody, Plaintiff filed suit.
Plaintiff alleged medical malpractice and constitutional
torts based on FCC Petersburg's failure to adequately
treat his Peyronie's Disease. He named Dana J. Boente,
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia,
and United States Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as
6, 2016, on Defendant's motion, the Court issued a
Memorandum Opinion [Dkt. 33] and Order [Dkt. 34] substituting
the United States for the named defendants and dismissing
Plaintiff's claims alleging constitutional torts. As to
Plaintiff's medical malpractice claim, the Court found
that Plaintiff had not complied with the Virginia Medical