Amira v. Maimonides Hosp.

• Decision Date: 30 November 2022
• Docket Number: 21-CV-3976 (RPK) (TAM)
• Parties: LANIT AMIRA, Plaintiff, v. MAIMONIDES HOSPITAL; MAIMONIDES PARAMEDIC SERVICES; HATZALAH PARAMEDIC SERVICES; JOHN DOE; and JANE DOE, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

LANIT AMIRA, Plaintiff,
v.
MAIMONIDES HOSPITAL; MAIMONIDES PARAMEDIC SERVICES; HATZALAH PARAMEDIC SERVICES; JOHN DOE; and JANE DOE, Defendants.

No. 21-CV-3976 (RPK) (TAM)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

November 30, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TARYN A. MERKL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff Lanit Amira initiated this action against Defendants Maimonides Medical Center^[1] (“Maimonides”) and Hatzalah Paramedic Services (“Hatzalah”) on July 6, 2021, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). (See Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1; Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff alleges that

1

Defendants' paramedics unlawfully seized her from her home and that she was later held against her will at Maimonides's facility in Brooklyn, New York. (See SAC, ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff has also named the individual Maimonides paramedics involved in the underlying events as John and Jane Doe Defendants. (Id. at 3, ¶ 5.^[2])

Currently before the Court are Maimonides's and Hatzalah's respective motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (See Hatzalah's Third Mot. to Dismiss (“Hatzalah MTD”), ECF No. 35; Maimonides's Second Mot. to Dismiss (“Maimonides MTD”), ECF No. 36.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court respectfully recommends that both motions be granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. Factual Background

This case arises from Plaintiff's involuntary admission to Maimonides in December 2018. (Compl., ECF No. 1, at 2.) As noted above, Plaintiff initiated this action on July 6, 2021. (See id.) Defendants include Maimonides and its paramedic staff, as well as Hatzalah, a volunteer ambulance company that initially responded to Plaintiff's home. (See generally id.; see also SAC, ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff alleges as follows.

On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff was at home with her mother in Brooklyn, New York. (SAC, ECF No. 32, at 4-5, ¶¶ 16, 21.) Concerned about Plaintiff's “behavior over the last few months,” Plaintiff's mother called Hatzalah on the recommendation of a friend. (Id. at 5, ¶ 19.) Plaintiff's mother reported that Plaintiff “had just gotten divorced and was going through a hard time due to [resulting] custody matters.” (Id.) “She also said that [Plaintiff] was more aggressive than usual” and raised “some other

2

complaints” about Plaintiff's behavior. (Id.) In response, Hatzalah dispatched an ambulance and several paramedics to Plaintiff's home. (Id. at 5, ¶ 20.)

The paramedics arrived and informed Plaintiff that she “was obligated to go to the hospital for psychiatric treatment.” (Id. at 5, ¶ 22.) Plaintiff “told them that [she didn't] need a psychiatric assessment” and presented them with a letter from her psychologist. (Id. at 5, ¶¶ 22, 24.) The paramedics insisted, explaining that “suicide was a risk,” and further prevented Plaintiff from leaving the room. (Id. at 5, ¶ 25 (“One stood in front of me and the other in back of me.”).) As Plaintiff alleges, the situation was “scary and felt unsafe.” (Id. at 6, ¶ 27.) Although her mother encouraged her to go with the paramedics, Plaintiff still declined. (Id. at 6, ¶¶ 31-32.)

After about two hours, Hatzalah's paramedics “call[ed] for back-up.” (Id. at 6, ¶ 32.) Four to six of Maimonides's paramedics then arrived, along “with a police officer.” (Id. at 6, ¶ 33.) Upon their arrival, “Hatzalah['s] paramedics waited outside.” (Id. at 6-7, ¶ 34.)

Plaintiff recounts as follows:

The Maimonides paramedics surrounded me while I sat on the couch.

They told me that I simply didn't have a choice and I had to allow them to take me to the hospital. The police officer chimed in[,] in agreement. His presence clearly changed the game. I felt like I didn't have a choice. They all kept pressuring me and told me that it would be best for me to comply without issues

(Id.) Eventually, “the Maimonides paramedics placed [her] in their ambulance and drove to” Maimonides's facility. (Id. at 7, ¶ 37.) “Hatzalah['s] ambulance followed along,” and “both Hatzalah and Maimonides paramedics escorted [Plaintiff] into the emergency room.” (Id.)

Plaintiff arrived at the emergency room around 5:00 p.m., at which point a nurse instructed her to change into a hospital robe and to place her belongings in a plastic

3

bag. (Id. at 7, ¶¶ 39-40.) Plaintiff initially refused, “demanding] to be seen by a doctor first.” (Id. at 7, ¶ 40.) The nurse informed Plaintiff that, if she continued to refuse, the nurse would “have to call the police and . . . force [her] into compliance.” (Id.) The nurse further stated that, once Plaintiff complied, the doctor would see her “immediately after that.” (Id.)

Plaintiff did as she was told and waited for the doctor. (Id. at 8, ¶ 42.) Meanwhile, a doctor spoke with Plaintiff's parents, who had by that point arrived at the emergency room. (Id.) The doctor then admitted Plaintiff into the hospital “without first speaking to” Plaintiff herself. (Id. at 8, ¶¶ 42-43.) Plaintiff was moved to an observation room and spent the night at Maimonides's facility. (Id. at 8, ¶¶ 44-45.) Plaintiff remained in Maimonides's care for three days, during which time members of Maimonides's staff took blood samples, took drug tests, and administered medication. (See id. at 7-13, ¶¶ 39-80.) Plaintiff was ultimately discharged on December 13, 2018. (See id. at 13, ¶ 77.)

II. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed suit on July 6, 2021, and has twice amended the Complaint. (See Compl., ECF No. 1; First Amend. Compl., ECF No. 18; SAC, ECF No. 32.) Her most recent pleading alleges twenty-one separate causes of action against Defendants. (See generally SAC, ECF No. 32, at 26-41, ¶¶ 30-195.)

Only some of Plaintiff's claims arise under federal law. These include § 1983 claims against Maimonides and its paramedics based on violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (claims three and four against “Maimonides Paramedic Services” and the Doe defendants; claims two and three against Maimonides). (See id. at 31, 33-34, ¶¶ 78-85, 107-14.) More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Maimonides's paramedics unlawfully seized her person by taking her from her home and transporting her to Maimonides's facility against her will. (See id. at 31, ¶¶ 78-85.) Plaintiff also

4

alleges that Maimonides unlawfully seized her personal belongings when she arrived at the emergency room. (Id. at 33, ¶ 111.) Plaintiff further asserts that Maimonides violated her due process rights by failing to evaluate her prior to her involuntary transport, failing to fill out state-mandated forms at such time, and later failing to evaluate Plaintiff before her committal at Maimonides's facility. (Id. at 31, 33, ¶¶ 81-82, 112.)

Plaintiff raises similar § 1983 claims against Hatzalah (claims three and four against Hatzalah). Plaintiff alleges that, although she “was ultimately taken to Maimonides hospital by the Maimonides paramedics,” Hatzalah was still “involved in the seizure [of her person], in every aspect.” (Id. at 29, ¶ 62.) In Plaintiff's words, “Hatzalah [p]aramedics still waited in my home until I was seized. They drove alongside Maimonides Paramedic Services to Maimonides Hospital and led me to the emergency room.” (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that, like Maimonides's paramedics, Hatzalah's paramedics violated her due process rights by failing to evaluate her while at her home and failing to fill out state-mandated forms. (Id. at 29, ¶ 60.)

Plaintiff's remaining federal claim is against Maimonides, alleging a violation of EMTALA (claim five against Maimonides).^[3] (See id. at 35, ¶¶ 124-31.) Echoing some of her other allegations, the basis of Plaintiff's EMTALA claim is that Maimonides's staff “failed to evaluate [Plaintiff] in the emergency room, prior to placing [her] under observation.” (Id. at 35, ¶ 126.)

5

The rest of Plaintiff's claims arise under state law. Against Hatzalah, Plaintiff has brought claims for gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). (Id. at 27-28, ¶¶ 30-55.) Against Maimonides's paramedics, Plaintiff has likewise brought claims for gross negligence and IIED. (Id. at 29-30, ¶¶ 65-77.) Generally speaking, each of these claims arise from actions Hatzalah, its paramedics, or Maimonides's paramedics took from the time Plaintiff's mother called Hatzalah, through Plaintiff's involuntary transport by Defendants to Maimonides's facility. (See Id. at 27-30, ¶¶ 30-55, 65-77.)

The bulk of Plaintiff's state law claims, however, are against Maimonides itself and relate to her treatment upon arrival at the emergency room. Plaintiff alleges claims for “reckless negligence,” IIED, breach of doctor-patient confidentiality, defamation, and false imprisonment. (See id. at 31-36, 40-41, ¶¶ 86-106, 115-23, 132-38, 183-95.) Plaintiff also points to more specific acts and omissions taken by Maimonides's staff, each set forth as a standalone cause of action as follows: “Reckless Administration of Medication,” “Failure to Obtain Consent for Lab Testing,” “Failure to Provide a Psychiatrist to Evaluate Me During Entire Hospitalization,” “Fail[ure] to Provide [M]e [w]ith My Daily Prescription,” and “Fail[ure] to Use Least Restrictive Method.”^[4] (See Id. at 36-40, ¶¶ 139-82.)

Summons were issued as to Hatzalah and Maimonides on October 20, 2021, and Plaintiff later filed a notice indicating that service was accomplished by November 1, 2021. (See Summons Issued, ECF No. 5; Nov. 22, 2021 Notice, ECF No. 14.) Maimonides

6

filed an answer on November 15, 2021, affirmatively asserting that Plaintiff had “failed to state a cause of action upon which relief [could] be granted.” (See Maimonides's Answer, ECF No. 10, ¶ 76.) Hatzalah did not file a responsive pleading, but submitted a pre-motion conference letter on November 15, 2021, “for an intended motion pursuant to...