Antoine v. Navicent Health, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-00048-TES |
| Parties | ALTER ANTOINE, Plaintiff, v. NAVICENT HEALTH, INC.; MEDICAL CENTER OF CENTRAL GEORGIA, INC.; HEALTH SERVICES OF CENTRAL GEORGIA, INC.; NAVICENT PHYSICIANS HEALTH GROUP; TARNEISHA W. CHARLESTON; MATTHEW C. SMITH, M.D.; JOHN D. JILES; JENNIFER J. LOGAN; ANGIE HARROD; ABC CORPORATION # 1 - 5; and JOHN DOES # 1 - 5; Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 48]. In their motion, Defendants maintain that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 42] is subject to dismissal for a multitude of reasons.
INTRODUCTION
Defendants contend that the core of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint rests on his dissatisfaction with being discharged from the Medical Center of Central Georgia, Inc.,1 and his dissatisfaction with the legal proceedings in the Superior Court of Bibb County, Georgia, permitting his discharge. [Doc. 48-1 at p. 2]. In addition to these central points, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint clearly displays his dissatisfaction with the care he received as a patient in Defendants' facility. In this case, Plaintiff asserts an Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd ("EMTALA"), claim and medical malpractice claims against the defendant hospital (all of which Defendants argue are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel) as well as claims for libel and slander; harassment; emotional distress; and invasion of privacy. [Doc. 42 at pp. 27-44]. In his final cause of action Plaintiff seeks to invalidate a lien filed by the Medical Center of Central Georgia, Inc., in relation to Plaintiff's time as a patient at the "[D]efendants' hospital facility." [Id. at p. 44].
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Court takes the following facts from Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (unless otherwise noted) and assumes them to be true for the purposes of ruling on Defendants' motion. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007).
Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, located in Albany, Georgia, transferred Plaintiff Alter Antoine ("Plaintiff") to Navicent Health, Inc. ("Navicent Health"), in Macon, Georgia, on March 29, 2017, following his involvement in a motor vehicle accident. [Doc. 42 at ¶¶ 5-6].2 According to Plaintiff, the nature of the injuries were severe. [Id. at ¶ 7]. The initial admitting diagnosis at Navicent Health included "a traumatic brain injury ("TBI"), a shear injury, intracerebral hemorrhage, grade 4 torn spleen, and grade 4 liver injury as well as numerous fractures, tears and lacerations[,] and other injuries." [Id.]. Plaintiff claims that "a TBI is one of the most devastating events and injuries [] a person can endure" and "patients can sustain permanent brain damage without proper neurological care." [Id. at ¶ 11]. Although Navicent Health supposedly knew of Plaintiff's traumatic brain injury, Plaintiff alleges that Navicent Health never provided neurological care despite him being admitted as a patient for more than five months. [Id. at ¶¶ 9, 12, 23].
On June 17, 2017, Navicent Health first cleared Plaintiff for discharge. [Id. at ¶¶ 15, 17]. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Smith testified (at a hearing in the Superior Court3 of Bibb County) that Navicent Health's discharge records were not accurate. [Id. at ¶ 16]. Specifically, Dr. Smith testified:
[Plaintiff] was unable to ambulate on his own, he was a serious risk to fall, [Plaintiff] was still dependent on a PEG feeding tube which had been surgically implanted into his stomach, [Plaintiff] was unable to medicate, unable to hydrate or feed himself, unable to urinate other than into a container thru [sic] a catheter attached to his penis, all while [Plaintiff] was suffering from a severe stage 4 decubitus ulcer [ ], with severe ongoing cognitive deficits affecting his comprehension, speech, memory, and inability to even begin to make important independent decisions for himself.
[Id. ()].
Plaintiff alleges that a video, taken four days after Navicent Health cleared Plaintiff for discharge, shows that Plaintiff still required assistance from hospital employees to help reduce Plaintiff's risk of falling. [Id. at ¶ 17]. All in all, despite Plaintiff's allegations that he was nowhere near ready for discharge, Navicent Health still "wanted [Plaintiff] to be out their door." [Id. at ¶¶ 22, 23]. Plaintiff contends that beginning on June 17, 2017, and continuing through "and beyond" August 9, 2017, Navicent Health conspired to evict Plaintiff. [Id. at ¶ 24].
On August 9, 2017, Navicent Health deemed Plaintiff safe for discharge for a second time, a decision that, Plaintiff argues, was based on false grounds. [Id. at ¶¶ 32, 33]. According to Plaintiff, nursing and assisting staff conspired, and without direction from a medical doctor, wheeled Plaintiff out of his hospital room "all the way down to Navicent's discharged patient pick-up area and dumped him there." [Id. at ¶ 34]. In doing so, Plaintiff contends that Defendants "recklessly and wantonly created a living nightmare for Plaintiff." [Id. at ¶ 39].4 Plaintiff states that he "was returned to the hospital as a patient because the hospital feared publicity from a news reporter who was on her way to Navicent having heard about what Navicent had done to [Plaintiff]." [Id. at ¶ 48].
Plaintiff claims that Defendants' "stunningly reckless" and "uncaring" attitude "permeated" each Defendant to the extent that they all "made significant effort" to "illegally discharge [Plaintiff]." [Id. at ¶ 26]. For example, Plaintiff states that Navicent Health did not contact Plaintiff's brother before discharge, which, according to Dr. Smith's testimony (at the superior-court hearing), was not appropriate since Plaintiff's brother was "supposed to be the one helping him." [Id. at ¶¶ 30, 31].
Eventually, given Plaintiff's refusal to leave, Navicent Health sought an injunction from the Superior Court of Bibb County to remove Plaintiff on the grounds of criminal trespass. [Id. at ¶¶ 54-56, 60]. In what Plaintiff calls an "attempt to double down on [Navicent Health's] insatiable desire to lock [Plaintiff] out," Navicent Health presented a "false set of legal papers" for immediate review by the court system. [Id. at ¶¶ 54-55]. According to Plaintiff, Navicent not only sought court intervention, but also "proudly" and "maliciously accused [Plaintiff] of being a criminal trespasser by remaining at Navicent." [Id. at ¶¶ 56, 74].
Plaintiff asserts that Navicent Health's "slanderous injunction case was a manipulation of the court system . . . so that [Plaintiff] would leave the hospital." [Id. at ¶ 62]. Specifically, Plaintiff now claims that the injunction application "did not contain a scintilla of records, evidence[,] nor medical statements to support their allegation of irreparable harm, because there was none." [Id. at ¶ 79]. To that end, Plaintiff concludes that the motive behind evicting Plaintiff was purely out of financial concern. [Id. at ¶ 78].
In light of these events, Plaintiff takes issue with Navicent Health's removal of "their traumatic brain injured patient" from his hospital room to the exit with "no medication," "nowhere to go," and "no one to pick him up." [Id. at ¶ 59]. Plaintiff characterizes Navicent Health's actions as "grotesque" and "an outrageous Goliath attempt to stomp out this 33[-]year[-]old man and to cover up their willful neglect and abuse." [Id. at ¶¶ 59, 61]. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Smith testified on several occasions at the superior-court injunction hearing that this particular conduct was "wrong," "reprehensible," and "unacceptable negligence." [Id. at ¶¶ 66, 67].
On August 15, 2017, Navicent Health brought Dr. Smith into Plaintiff's hospital room for what Plaintiff argues was a means to "cook up" three lines in the record that Plaintiff was "supposedly safe for discharge to Hemlock Street or out to a Macon homeless shelter. [Id. at ¶¶ 81, 86]. Later, however, Plaintiff contends Dr. Smith recanted on cross-examination and stated that his previous decision authorizing discharge was "totally improper, dangerous, and life threatening." [Id. at ¶ 87].
[Doc. 33-2 at pp. 5-6]. After 160 days,6 Navicent discharged Plaintiff on September 5, 2017. [Doc. 33-3]. But, in an attempt "to stick it to [Plaintiff] one more time," Plaintiff alleges that Navicent "secretly filed a purported lien for their alleged billing," never letting Plaintiff know of their plans. [Doc. 42 at ¶ 114].
Following his discharge, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in the United States District Court for the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial