Background
Sonya Epps Gray was detained at the Union Parish Detention Center in late 2015 or early 2016. A nurse discovered a lump in her right breast in May 2016, and the detention center physician ordered a mammogram. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections denied payment, characterizing the test as routine primary care for which it was not financially responsible. Gray did not receive mammograms in 2016 or 2017.
In August 2018, Gray reported a rapidly enlarging lump and swelling in her left breast. Testing showed triple-negative invasive lobular cancer, with extensive metastases later found in her bones and brain. She entered hospice and died in December 2018. Her mother brought survival and wrongful-death claims against the detention center defendants and state defendants, alleging that the failure to provide mammography delayed diagnosis and reduced Gray’s chance of survival.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Circuit reversed summary judgment for the Union Parish Detention Center, its commission, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and Tamrya Young, and remanded. The court held that competing expert affidavits created genuine disputes of material fact on causation.
The defense oncologist opined that Gray’s left-breast inflammatory cancer developed in 2018 and was unrelated to the unperformed 2016 mammogram concerning her right breast. Plaintiff’s oncologist opined that annual mammograms could have detected the left-breast cancer sooner and potentially extended Gray’s life. The trial court improperly weighed those competing expert opinions and assessed the sufficiency of plaintiff’s expert evidence—tasks reserved for the factfinder.
Key Takeaways
- Conflicting expert opinions on whether delayed mammography contributed to a cancer patient’s death generally present a fact question.
- A court deciding summary judgment may not weigh competing expert affidavits or make credibility determinations.
- The ruling does not resolve whether any defendant owed or breached a duty; it returns the claims for further proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that causation disputes involving medical care and delayed diagnosis cannot be resolved on summary judgment merely because one expert’s explanation is more detailed than another’s. Where admissible expert opinions support competing inferences, a jury must determine the causal relationship between the alleged failure of care and the claimed injury.