Date: 02-07-2016

Case Style: Eugene Brinson v. United States of America

Case Number: 15-2677

Judge: Julio M. Fuentes

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Plaintiff's Attorney: Leena Alam

Defendant's Attorney: Mark K. McCulloch

Description: Appellant Eugene Kenneth Brinson appeals from the District Court’s award of
damages in the amount of $350.00 for the Appellee’s negligence in serving chicken
tainted with salmonella to Appellant while he was an inmate at USP-Canaan on June 25,
2011. For the reasons stated below, we will summarily affirm. Because the parties are
familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, we need not reiterate them.
Brinson brought a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) against the
United States, claiming that he was served chicken tainted with salmonella on June 25,
2011, while incarcerated at USP-Canaan. He claims that, as a result, he suffered from
symptoms of salmonella poisoning for 60 days, including stomach pain, cramping,
nausea, dehydration, and diarrhea. He sought punitive damages.
The Appellees conceded liability and the matter proceeded to a bench trial on the
issue of damages. Brinson argued that he was kept behind a locked door and denied
access to medical care for his salmonella poisoning for the 13 days after the incident due
to a prison lockdown. He asserts that he is entitled to damages in the amount of $10,000
a day for each of the 13 days he was denied treatment and experiencing severe physical
pain and mental anguish. He also argues that he was given inappropriate and inadequate
medication for his illness, which caused salmonella to remain in his system for over 60
days. As a result, he was unable to go to work at the prison or interact with the other
inmates.
The District Court made a finding of fact that Brinson had symptoms of
salmonella for only seven days based on Brinson’s medical records. The Court also
found that Dr. Holloway, a physical at USP-Canaan at the time of the outbreak, went
3
door to door providing treatment to the inmates. Based on Dr. Holloway’s testimony, the
standard medical protocol for treating salmonella was hydration, and not the antibiotics
that Brinson requested. The Court noted that the FTCA does not permit the grant of
punitive damages; however, the Court awarded Brinson 50 dollars per day for the seven
days he had salmonella poisoning symptoms for his intangible damages of pain and
suffering, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for enjoyment of life. Brinson appealed.
We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary
review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and review its findings of fact for clear
error. O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 173 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). A district
court’s determination of damages is only disturbed upon a showing of clear error. See
Tyminski v. United States, 481 F.2d 257, 271 (3d Cir.1973). Absent “a firm conviction
that the damages award was so inadequate as to warrant interference on the appellate
level,” we will uphold a District Court’s award. Id.; see also Lanning v. Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 181 F.3d 478, 501-02 (3d Cir.1999) (clear error standard
requires district court to be affirmed if its account is plausible in light of the entirety of
the record even though appellate court might have weighed the evidence differently).
We may take summary action if an appeal does not present a substantial question. See 3d
Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
Brinson argues that he suffered symptoms of salmonella poisoning for at least 60
days. The medical records Brinson attached to his complaint indeed indicate he
experienced diarrhea and abdominal pain as of mid-August 2011, about two months after
he ingested chicken tainted with salmonella. The District Court reasoned, however, that
4
based on its review of Brinson’s medical records and the testimony of Dr. Holloway,
Brinson had salmonella poisoning for only seven days. The Court found persuasive a
nonbinding decision, Gil v. United States of America, 2006 WL 385088 (M.D. Fl. 2006),
where a district court awarded a federal inmate who suffered food poisoning
noneconomic damages of 50 dollars per day. Similar to the case at bar, the district court
in Gil reasoned that 50 dollars a day was “a fair and reasonable amount to compensate
[the] Plaintiff for his intangible losses” where a federal prisoner had suffered from a few
days of acute gastroenteritis from eating tainted ham at the prison dining hall. Id. at *3.
The Court reasoned that the prisoner did not incur any “medical expenses, lost wages, or
other special damages,” and therefore, his recovery was limited to “intangible damages
for pain and suffering, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for enjoyment of life.” Id.
While Brinson appears to have suffered from diarrhea and abdominal pain for a
few months after he ate the salmonella-tainted chicken, we cannot conclude the District
Court clearly erred in limiting his damages award calculation to the seven days. As the
Court noted, Brinson’s continued diarrhea could have been caused by factors other than
salmonella poisoning, such as his pre-existing gastroenteritis, and from the antibiotics he
was given for his sinusitis. His medical records from mid-July and mid-August indicate
that his other vital signs were normal.

Outcome: Moreover, the District Court did not err in declining to grant the punitive damages Brinson requested because such damages are prohibited in FTCA cases.

As this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: